Thought i'd chuck this into the melting pot
Heres a few blokes that dabbled in science and still had time to communicate with big G,whatever they conceived the "great score keeper" to be.
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) Astronomer and mathematician
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) First dude to devise scientific inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning.
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Mathematician and astronomer
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Astronomer
Rene Descartes (1596-1650) Mathmetician
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) Early physicist,mathmetician,mechanical engineer and chemist
Robert Boyle (1791-1867) Chemist and physicist
Michael Faraday (1791-1867) Revolutionised physics with his work on electromagnetism and electricity.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) Made breakthroughs to pave the way to the mathematical foundation for genetics.
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) Physicist who amongst other things estimated that the earth was 500 million years old,dodgy estimate but longer than 7 days,he didnt understand enough about radiogenic heating at the time.
Max Planck (1858-1947) Of the Plancks constant fame.
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Well,you dont have to be Einstein to know who he is.
Kris, I haven't yet worked out where you are coming from mate, in more ways than one.
I'm not sure if you fully understand some of the points you are hoping to make, or in turn, it might be me, who is failing to interpret your presentations.
Some of your posts seem to miss the mark under an avalanche of name-drops, and others just seem to miss the mark, in my opinion that is.
I think you feel passionately about the subject matter but for some reason I am unable to key into the relevance / thought process, of some of your responses.
I don't think you are indulging us too much in 'Google expertise' but something ain't quite right here and it may well be me....but I doubt it
This last post catalogues an impressive array of intellectuals who you say had at sometime or another, occasion to touch base with him upstairs.
I think the point you are trying to make with this is obviously, if those guys decide to align themselves with a god, then who are we to question otherwise?
I think we need to differentiate between god and religion here, any scientist worth his salt would have to default to a creator when he ponders our position.
The fact we live in a universe where causality underpins everything, it might be hard to subscribe to any notion of spontaneous creation, and as you may be aware, the logical conclusion of winding the big bang back is to look into the ugly face of a singularity ...the mathematics used to wind it all in reverse, chokes on that.
It's hardly surprising that at this point, scientists and astro-physicists / mathematicians would all consider a prime mover.
The fact that Dawkins (The God Delusion) then dismisses any such conclusion on the basis you are then drawn inevitably toward asking , 'well who created him'? is in my opinion, a mistake.
Unfortunately for Dawkins, in my ignorant opinion, he then goes onto make this assumption a cornerstone of his book.
If he considered this point a little more instead of glossing over it as if it were a mere philosophical certainty then he mighta got my soul.
Believing in a god (creator) is not the same as being religious.
Religion to me, should be a derivative of the creator, but in this world, it is more a derivative of man, and man's emotional / spiritual / political need to look upward and also to create an extremely powerful and effective social focus.
