RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe

RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/22/2010 11:46:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster with the Earth evidently at the center, and the baby Jesus at the (figurative) center of the Earth If those are the kind of people you're smarter than, I wouldn't be so quick to brag about it. [:D] K.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/23/2010 12:56:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster with the Earth evidently at the center, and the baby Jesus at the (figurative) center of the Earth If those are the kind of people you're smarter than, I wouldn't be so quick to brag about it. [:D] K. I'm sure you're prepared to tell us all why.

jin99 -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/23/2010 1:36:47 AM)
GAH! Newtonian physics is something modern scientists teach school children who don't have the aptitude for higher level science (including yours truly), because it is adequate for the general public's needs, and provides a convenient framework for most observable phenomenon. When you actually talk to physicists doing current research, Newton is outmoded. It no longer serves as the basis of our understanding of the universe at the fundamental level. Gravity is no longer considered a pulling force, but a distortion in space and time. That should tell you how common-sense is "useless in the quantum world", as one physicist put it. Bottom line is, Newton had long since been superseded. It's like saying Galileo was wrong because he contradicted Aristotle's teachings. All that Hawkins said is to the best of human knowledge, GOD IS NOT NECESSARY. He did not claim to have found the law of everything or the perfect answer of how creation happened. To say this would be unscientific. He is in the realm of speculative theoretics and he knows it, will admit his knowledge is PROVISIONAL. That doesn't mean he do does not have the data to rule out the wrong answers. The fact remains: Hawkings never said something came out of NOTHING. To put it in crude terms and in vast strokes, the Big Bang says the Universe is created, when a super singularity, like a black hole, with super symmetry, collapsed on itself and exploded. Nothing was ever created out of nothing. It's just that what once had been compacted to an unimaginably minuscule had blown up into a thing that is extremely dispersed. Beyond that process is a time when the current laws of physics did not exist and therefore unknowable. The problem is that a human like intelligence directing all of those events, is unlikely to the extreme, and the materials and energies that created a universe is perfectly capable of performing those things speculated ON ITS OWN. We are no longer examining a watch and guessing there might be a maker. Scientists are looking at a universe that is self-generating and self-sustaining. If people want to fall back on 19th century obsolescent natural philosophy, it's their right. But denigrating the best mind in the cutting edge of physical research, just because he challenged a long-cherished idea that is unfortunately unsupported by scientific inquiry, borders on the infantile.

samboct -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/23/2010 6:03:54 AM)
"Gravity is no longer considered a pulling force, but a distortion in space and time." Sorry- but this is incorrect- as are a bunch of your other points. Gravity can cause distortions in space- that's been known since light's trajectory passing a heavy star could be altered. But that doesn't mean that gravity isn't an attractive force. Nor is Newton outmoded- the physics works very well for the trajectories of macroscopic objects. Scientists use equations of momentum, force and energy developed by Newton all the time, and there is no suggestion to use quantum mechanics unless dealing with things on an atomic level. Furthermore- Newton's equations of things like Force = mass x acceleration- still work fine, they're just quantized, i.e. only certain inputs allowed. Nor is the universe self generating and sustaining- the big bang is not a cycle- it was a one time event. The universe has continued to expand. If we understand how the big bang took place, we may get more information about the conditions leading up to the explosion. So the idea that what happened prior to the big bang is unknowable is not correct- although it may very well be in practical terms. Also unknown is the possible existence of an originator of the big bang as noted previously. Sam

jin99 -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/23/2010 8:50:53 AM)
To the best of my knowledge classic Newtonian physics is no longer used as an interpretive model for physics; it is adequate as a framework to predict the movement of relatively big objects--from cars to stars--or as you put it, macroscopic objects. If I understand the concept correctly, gravity as a distortion to space applies to all gravitational phenomena that is not confined to light's trajectory near stars, but an dime's trajectory near planets. I do not imply to state big bang is a repetition. I apologize if there is a certain lack of clarity; what I mean is no outside interference is needed for Big Bang to work as a theory. From a perspective of logic, introducing an extraneous cause to an effect is not acceptable. A sufficient cause means just that, enough in and of itself. Now, you can argue that we cannot disprove God since the origin of the universe is not yet known. But contrary to a former VP's statement, an absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/23/2010 8:55:14 AM)
You only posted that because I posted this.

mnottertail -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/23/2010 8:57:25 AM)
And you are trying to get ahead of the curve with some PR, because you knew I was going to post this.

GotSteel -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/23/2010 12:52:25 PM)
While Hippiekinkster's representation of the Bibles authors leaves something to be desired in terms of accuracy the point he's conveying is non trivial and your ridicule doesn't change that.

Kirata -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/23/2010 1:26:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel While Hippiekinkster's representation of the Bibles authors leaves something to be desired in terms of accuracy the point he's conveying is non trivial and your ridicule doesn't change that. Your perception of where there is ridicule and where there is not is also lacking in accuracy. And I don't give much credence to "points" that are as inaccurate as either yours or his. So you can save yourself some trouble, if you care to. K.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/23/2010 2:53:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jin99 To the best of my knowledge classic Newtonian physics is no longer used as an interpretive model for physics; it is adequate as a framework to predict the movement of relatively big objects--from cars to stars--or as you put it, macroscopic objects. If I understand the concept correctly, gravity as a distortion to space applies to all gravitational phenomena that is not confined to light's trajectory near stars, but an dime's trajectory near planets. I do not imply to state big bang is a repetition. I apologize if there is a certain lack of clarity; what I mean is no outside interference is needed for Big Bang to work as a theory. From a perspective of logic, introducing an extraneous cause to an effect is not acceptable. A sufficient cause means just that, enough in and of itself. Now, you can argue that we cannot disprove God since the origin of the universe is not yet known. But contrary to a former VP's statement, an absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. Newton's laws are perfectly valid and are used for "big objects". That may be what you are saying, but the way you put it could be interpreted to mean they are incorrect. The apparent contradiction between quantum gravity/gravitons and general relativy/warping of space time is also thought to be a scale issue. GR works at the macro level, but breaks down in the micro level. M theory's basic approach is essentially to verify BOTH theories at their respective applicable scales but ensure that near the "border" between Quantum and GR scales there is a single theory that works on both sides of the border. You close with a correct statement very important to this discussion, though. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. (unless there are physical explanations for the absence of evidence, such as the inability to observe the evidence. A good example of this exception is string theory, where the size of the extra dimensions may be so tiny or so huge that our current instruments cannot detect them). As Kirata (I think) said, even if we cannot observe god, we still should be able to observe his effects if there are any. (If the effects themselves are unobservable then it is irrelevant whether there is a god or not.) Millions of people have been looking for those effects for thousands of years, with no verifiable observation of those effects.

mnottertail -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/23/2010 3:12:55 PM)
Newtons law of gravitation holds in those cases where extreme accuracy is not required, when extreme accuracy is needed, one then takes up Einsteins theory of general relativity, although Newtons law is an excellent and accurate approximation, and indeed, is good enough for the girls I go out with. Oh yeah, and to be properly punctilious, massive and/or extremely dense objects.

GotSteel -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/24/2010 4:44:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata And yes, I agreed with you that both the Bible and the Qur'an have objectionable parts, and that one might hope for a more enlightened approach to the text than a literal reading of its message in all particulars. So why then, in religion threads, do you post snippets from the Bible and argue from a literal reading of the text? It is a diversion, a diversion that embodies the least enlightened possible approach to the religious literature of any tradition, and one that is regularly employed by fundamentalist hucksters to render discussion moot and thinking un-necessary. I'm glad that Christianity has evolved to one extent or another depending on denomination and I'm certainly glad that they no longer follow certain sections of the Bible. However, when they work to find newly invented positions in the old text, it isn't a matter of a more enlightened approach but of wishful thinking. Ad hoc rationalizations aren't a valid way of dealing with those pesky passages, they are a diversion from facing up to the reality that some of the stuff in their is obviously untrue.

Icarys -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/24/2010 5:12:47 PM)
quote: Millions of people have been looking for those effects for thousands of years, with no verifiable observation of those effects. They're all around you on Earth and in space..We just haven't been able to "verify" it quite yet. I'd suggest you start there though if you want to actually find God.

samboct -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/24/2010 6:07:32 PM)
"I'd suggest you start there though if you want to actually find God. " Naw-just play Black Sabbath at 78.

samboct -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/24/2010 6:18:46 PM)
Jin "To the best of my knowledge classic Newtonian physics is no longer used as an interpretive model for physics; it is adequate as a framework to predict the movement of relatively big objects--from cars to stars--or as you put it, macroscopic objects." The transition from Newtonian mechanics to quantum mechanics is largely confined to the accuracy of the answer needed. Newtonian mechanics can give an analytical solution that is verifiable to the limits of accuracy, so it really makes little difference if quantum mechanics would predict a slightly different result- since the difference is so small its not theoretically observable (Brownian motion limits accuracy at a minimum.) Quantum mechanics gives you a more limited answer, couched in terms of probability. But the framework of motion that we use to interpret events in our world does fine with Newton, so the idea that Newton isn't used for physics is in error. Newtonian physics does break down at the atomic level- but once you get to a canonical ensemble of about 10,000 atoms (if I remember my stat mech- not my strong suit by a long shot!) Newton takes over. In other words, quantum mechanics on larger than 10,000 atoms gives a more complex answer than Newton that isn't any more accurate. Sam

GotSteel -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/24/2010 7:53:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys They're all around you on Earth and in space..We just haven't been able to "verify" it quite yet. Until you do your claims are unjustified.

Kirata -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/24/2010 10:16:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Ad hoc rationalizations aren't a valid way of dealing with those pesky passages, they are a diversion from facing up to the reality that some of the stuff in their is obviously untrue. Please explain how interpreting various passages non-literally, which implicity acknowledges that they can't be interpreted literally, avoids facing fact that they can't be interpreted literally. Take your time. K.

Kirata -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/25/2010 1:52:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: taleon Look at the options we have: - Nobody is answering prayers. - Someone is answering the prayers, but in a way that is impossible for the rest of us to measure or to detect. Those would appear to be the only options, taking the quoted passages by themselves. But in the broader context, it is seen to depend on (1) where within yourself you're praying from, i.e., your state of mind and heart, and (2) whether or not the prayer is for something that would contravene a higher purpose. That's not to argue either way on the issue of prayers being answered, just to clarify the context in which the question must be understood. Disproving the wrong thing gets nobody anywhere. quote: ORIGINAL: taleon If you put God outside the reach of any test, then indeed, it is impossible to disprove its existence. Also, postulating such a God doesn't help us in any meaningful way. Your second statement doesn't follow. The effect of a belief is independent of whether or not the belief is true. K.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/25/2010 1:52:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: taleon Look at the options we have: - Nobody is answering prayers. - Someone is answering the prayers, but in a way that is impossible for the rest of us to measure or to detect. Those would appear to be the only options, taking the quoted passages by themselves. But in the broader context, it is seen to depend on (1) where within yourself you're praying from, i.e., your state of mind and heart, and (2) whether or not the prayer is for something that would contravene a higher purpose. That's not to argue either way on the issue of prayers being answered, just to clarify the context in which the question must be understood. Disproving the wrong thing gets nobody anywhere. quote: ORIGINAL: taleon If you put God outside the reach of any test, then indeed, it is impossible to disprove its existence. Also, postulating such a God doesn't help us in any meaningful way. Your second statement doesn't follow. The effect of a belief is independent of whether or not the belief is true. K. Unless the belief CREATES the effect, or even reality itself

taleon -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/25/2010 3:24:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Those would appear to be the only options, taking the quoted passages by themselves. But in the broader context, it is seen to depend on (1) where within yourself you're praying from, i.e., your state of mind and heart, and (2) whether or not the prayer is for something that would contravene a higher purpose. That's not to argue either way on the issue of prayers being answered, just to clarify the context in which the question must be understood. Disproving the wrong thing gets nobody anywhere. With those two points any detailed study dealing with the effect of prayers becomes rather difficult indeed. Even if we could possibly do something with (1), (2) is nye impossible to take into consideration. Which is unfortunate, since it seems to me that if we can't study it, we can't learn much about it. And that leaves me right where I started; if there is no reason to assume that prayers are listened to, I better not assume that they are. quote: Your second statement doesn't follow. The effect of a belief is independent of whether or not the belief is true. That could be true, I don't know. I meant to suggest that the notion of an omnipotent, but undetectable, God is not going to help us understand the universe better. It doesn't give us something we can look at and verify.

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625