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

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



Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 10:35:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

So crazy that its been done in the lab regularly.

Care to share the links to that? They've created a number of things recently (last 10 years) including reproducing black holes but making something from nothing is news to me.



In 1996 the Casimir effect (creation of a force field in a vacuum) was experimentally confirmed.1997 was the first matter/antimatter I believe.

"One way in which all the matter and antimatter ratios can be effectively taken care of is if they never mix... if at the instant of the big bang which created matter from pure energy (lets say from a burst of intense photonic light) matter is confined to travel forward in time while all the antimatter was confined to travel backwards in time. The CPT Symmetry insists that if we consider a positron (anti-electron) to have all reversed properties as a "special electron" then the property of time is also reversed too. The fact that the matter-antimatter creation event can occur without the intervention of matter (sparking the vacuum!) and has been performed at SLAC in 1997 adds credibility to this interpretation. It does take a little wind out of the sails for quark-gluon soups being needed in the Baryogenesis event but who cares if it is "easier" to do so it should happen in preference to the more energetic event possible. In fact matter antimatter creation naturally separates out into two "particle bubbles" due to the time phases being apparently "incompatible" it would seem.... due to this time separation process... and we see this today in pair production from the objective "third-time" we record in a Laboratory. The idea that matter and antimatter existing in the one space even for an instant do not naturally annihilate seems absurd... but the fact has been experimentally proven recently adding some loose support for this "phase separation process" as a fundamental property of matter and antimatter."

In May there was a potentially critical finding that I believe is still in peer review. It isnt related to creation of matter/antimatter in a vacuum, but is important in the next step of creation. There appears to be a violation of matter/anti-matter symmetry in the decay of existing particles, with matter being 1% more probable than anti-matter. It sounds small but is more than enough to account for the dominance of matter in the observable universe.



Icarys -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 10:53:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

So crazy that its been done in the lab regularly.

Care to share the links to that? They've created a number of things recently (last 10 years) including reproducing black holes but making something from nothing is news to me.



In 1996 the Casimir effect (creation of a force field in a vacuum) was experimentally confirmed.1997 was the first matter/antimatter I believe.

"One way in which all the matter and antimatter ratios can be effectively taken care of is if they never mix... if at the instant of the big bang which created matter from pure energy (lets say from a burst of intense photonic light) matter is confined to travel forward in time while all the antimatter was confined to travel backwards in time. The CPT Symmetry insists that if we consider a positron (anti-electron) to have all reversed properties as a "special electron" then the property of time is also reversed too. The fact that the matter-antimatter creation event can occur without the intervention of matter (sparking the vacuum!) and has been performed at SLAC in 1997 adds credibility to this interpretation. It does take a little wind out of the sails for quark-gluon soups being needed in the Baryogenesis event but who cares if it is "easier" to do so it should happen in preference to the more energetic event possible. In fact matter antimatter creation naturally separates out into two "particle bubbles" due to the time phases being apparently "incompatible" it would seem.... due to this time separation process... and we see this today in pair production from the objective "third-time" we record in a Laboratory. The idea that matter and antimatter existing in the one space even for an instant do not naturally annihilate seems absurd... but the fact has been experimentally proven recently adding some loose support for this "phase separation process" as a fundamental property of matter and antimatter."

In May there was a potentially critical finding that I believe is still in peer review. It isnt related to creation of matter/antimatter in a vacuum, but is important in the next step of creation. There appears to be a violation of matter/anti-matter symmetry in the decay of existing particles, with matter being 1% more probable than anti-matter. It sounds small but is more than enough to account for the dominance of matter in the observable universe.

It's not a link like I asked. You think this concludes beyond a shadow of a doubt the big bang theory? This isn't something out of nothing BTW because it states if you'll read more on it instead of posturing, that the vacuum of space is indeed seething with "quantum fluctuations of different frequencies"..These lab tests have reproduced very limited results..Hardly proof of the big bang nor do they back up Hawking's theories.

Didn't we go through this with Einstein? We were sure that he had everything figured out only to find "recently" that his theories couldn't explain everything yet they fit nicely for most things.

Is this where you got that from? [:D]
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=29283



tazzygirl -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 11:01:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

So crazy that its been done in the lab regularly.

Care to share the links to that? They've created a number of things recently (last 10 years) including reproducing black holes but making something from nothing is news to me.



In 1996 the Casimir effect (creation of a force field in a vacuum) was experimentally confirmed.1997 was the first matter/antimatter I believe.

"One way in which all the matter and antimatter ratios can be effectively taken care of is if they never mix... if at the instant of the big bang which created matter from pure energy (lets say from a burst of intense photonic light) matter is confined to travel forward in time while all the antimatter was confined to travel backwards in time. The CPT Symmetry insists that if we consider a positron (anti-electron) to have all reversed properties as a "special electron" then the property of time is also reversed too. The fact that the matter-antimatter creation event can occur without the intervention of matter (sparking the vacuum!) and has been performed at SLAC in 1997 adds credibility to this interpretation. It does take a little wind out of the sails for quark-gluon soups being needed in the Baryogenesis event but who cares if it is "easier" to do so it should happen in preference to the more energetic event possible. In fact matter antimatter creation naturally separates out into two "particle bubbles" due to the time phases being apparently "incompatible" it would seem.... due to this time separation process... and we see this today in pair production from the objective "third-time" we record in a Laboratory. The idea that matter and antimatter existing in the one space even for an instant do not naturally annihilate seems absurd... but the fact has been experimentally proven recently adding some loose support for this "phase separation process" as a fundamental property of matter and antimatter."

In May there was a potentially critical finding that I believe is still in peer review. It isnt related to creation of matter/antimatter in a vacuum, but is important in the next step of creation. There appears to be a violation of matter/anti-matter symmetry in the decay of existing particles, with matter being 1% more probable than anti-matter. It sounds small but is more than enough to account for the dominance of matter in the observable universe.



The source....

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/articles/article/where-has-all-the-antimatter-gone/

Halfway down in the comments section.

Hi thedoc, Farsight, LeeE, Geezer and all,

This answer is not "out of the box" either... Interesting article but gives few real clues. Of course the answers might be "already well understood"... just not acceptable in the framework of current theories. I would like to propose an "old" idea that has no disproof but appears to cause quite a few frowns on the brows of those who believe in "tachyons" (which I think are purely fictional). These theories appear to be superficially incompatible. It beggars the mind to think that a theory such a tachyons can get "legs and begin to run" without any physical proof. The theory I suggest you all "reconsider" is the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation for Antimatter.
Antimatter - Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation
Put simply... antimatter is simply a state of matter in which it is traveling into the past. The creation of particles and antiparticles still "works" and there is vast amounts of energy involved but rather than thinking that matter and antimatter is all about "the explosive release of energy" we consider it as the creation of "mirror matter" as a "matter wave reflection" in a mirror that projects it backwards through time. Matter wave reflections associated with elliptical quantum corrals producing matter wave phantoms... which have all the physical properties including the chemical properties of the original "imaged" atoms... have been recently demonstrated at the IBM Almaden Laboratories.

One way in which all the matter and antimatter ratios can be effectively taken care of is if they never mix... if at the instant of the big bang which created matter from pure energy (lets say from a burst of intense photonic light) matter is confined to travel forward in time while all the antimatter was confined to travel backwards in time. The CPT Symmetry insists that if we consider a positron (anti-electron) to have all reversed properties as a "special electron" then the property of time is also reversed too. The fact that the matter-antimatter creation event can occur without the intervention of matter (sparking the vacuum!) and has been performed at SLAC in 1997 adds credibility to this interpretation. It does take a little wind out of the sails for quark-gluon soups being needed in the Baryogenesis event but who cares if it is "easier" to do so it should happen in preference to the more energetic event possible. In fact matter antimatter creation naturally separates out into two "particle bubbles" due to the time phases being apparently "incompatible" it would seem.... due to this time separation process... and we see this today in pair production from the objective "third-time" we record in a Laboratory. The idea that matter and antimatter existing in the one space even for an instant do not naturally annihilate seems absurd... but the fact has been experimentally proven recently adding some loose support for this "phase separation process" as a fundamental property of matter and antimatter. "Classical Grand Unification" may still occur at high temperatures but may not be the only "unification" possible. Naturally since the point of creation is the natural "zero" of time any backward traveling in time antimatter simply went into a spacetime foliation of relatively negative time... A separate mirror universe. There would be no annihilation of either matter or antimatter since these states were separated from the start of our universe and aside from that single instant of creation and very brief subsequent period where this event carried "creation" forward there was no further mixing of matter or antimatter in our universe or in the mirror universe since they now were existing in two different non-overlapping time streams... in the identical way in which Feynman Diagrams have always indicated. Antimatter created in our time is attempting to travel back to the big bang and enter the parallel foliation but "mostly" (and not surprisingly) it mostly undergoes an annihilation event long before it travels those billions of years backward in time. Please note that the matter particle that was created in the creation event does not need to be the particle annihilated later on by the antiparticle... any identical particle will do!

What appears to happen in the annihilation event is the transfer through time of a normal particle in the present to an identical and entangled particle in the past using the Feynman-Stueckelberg Time Travel Paradigm which I have illustrated here for an electron but the same routine applies for any antiparticle.

This illustration shows a particle such as an electron (particle A) progressing normally forward in time along the vector A from the origin to the coordinates S,T = 1.5,1 then encountering it's own antiparticle (particle B) moving along the vector B and annihilating. The two particles vanish liberating a pair of photons (... the two blue lines). This can now be reinterpreted as a particle creation event in which two mirror particles (electron positron) are created at the coordinates coordinates S,T = 2,0 then progressing forward in time as an electron (particle C) along vector C and positron (particle B) along vector B. What the Feynman-Stueckelberg Time Travel Paradigm suggests is that particle A and particle C are the same particle... the entire event causes the particle A to be transported back through time as particle B along the vector B in the negative time direction to the new coordinates. The two electrons A and C are copies of itself existing on different time lines and it is not impossible for them to potentially "harmlessly" encounter "each other" before particle A performs this time travel "trick". The time travel is the annihilation event itself which is actually not an ending but a new beginning as particle C in it's own past.

There is an interesting further point to be made here is the energy emitted and absorbed in the form of photon pairs are "truly time symmetric since" since nature does not care where the photon source was or where the sink is ... the source of the energy and the sink of the energy could be simply a quantum catalytic event in which these two are connected together as this nett reaction require no nett input if "correctly configured" as an emitter-absorber event pair we see in waveguides. This is in general agreement with the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics which has been given additional support recently by the enigmatic results from a test of Hardy's Paradox where the event phenomena become part of a more general eventspace which can involve the uncollapse of events that have been recently demonstrated. It would just mean that both emission and absorption would need to occur in the "near field" to allow this to occur. Experimentally all these features can be shown individually to exist while the existence of tachyons cannot be shown to exist.

No new particles needed.... So much experimental support and not a scrap of real investigative analysis being able to dispute this process. So I believe "everything old is new again"... if you can time travel. Considering the universal use of Feynman Diagrams of which this is "sort of" one of them it is strange to me that these ideas are given no credence in todays papers and instead so much is allowed to an demonstrably unproven idea such as tachyons to rule the roost. Why the prejudice? I think we are forced to wait out the events unfolding at CERN to see if this is still on the table and certain other theories that are still currently unproven are proven to be "unprofitable". Are we so needy of finding a way to make more weapons that we have forgotten these still sound proposals waiting in the wings that have the potential to "correct" our theories of cosmology?

Cheers



cpK69 -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 12:22:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

Technically we are flying but not by our definition of a bird.

It is possible that having that kind of knowledge may change us physically but you and I are so far from ever having that full knowledge as a species that we will never know. IMO



I’ve tried… can’t figure how being a passenger on a plane constitutes ‘me flying’; technically.

Also, it seems more probably, we would have to change to gain the knowledge, then to think the knowledge would change us… from my observations… [8|]

Of course, I could be wrong.[:D]

Kim



Icarys -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 12:34:20 PM)

quote:

I’ve tried… can’t figure how being a passenger on a plane constitutes ‘me flying’; technically.

Also, it seems more probably, we would have to change to gain the knowledge, then to think the knowledge would change us… from my observations…

Of course, I could be wrong.

Kim

Well you are in part going from the ground and being transported by the wind through the air.

As for us changing/knowledge or knowledge/changing us..Well that may be a chicken and the egg discussion [:D]

Who knows.



kdsub -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 12:45:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub


He has NO proof of spontaneous creation… none whatsoever...it is strictly an opinion of his... there is no math to back it up...


You are so insanely wrong on this post, and so illogical in this thread, that it is clear you dont have the slightest understanding of science. Read the book, till then stfu, because you have no clue what you are talking about.


Yea right show me...there is no proof of Spontaneous Creation... If this idea were proven science then there would be nothing left to understand...All would be unified ...show me the proof... If we understood unequivocally the nature of the universe then all things would be possible...yea right show me the proof... Your blind admiration of a person is not proof of anything. One last time… show me the proof of his idea?

Book or no book show me or stop with your silly I'm smarted than you bull...You act like you know what you are talking about...yea show me proof of that too.

Now maybe in laymen’s terms... please try to explain the proof to me.... you have read the book and know all...

Then please tell me why my ideas would be less likely...you know read think and form an opinion...just like Hawkins.

Butch



juliaoceania -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 12:51:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

I think the majority of people know this now and it’s time we speak up and rid ourselves of this irrational fairy tale we call religion which they use to pollute minds with lies like if you blow yourself up you go to heaven and will be with 50 virgins.


Whenever I see a statement like this I am reminded of how easily it goes from "I wish others would discard a belief" to "We should rid ourselves of this belief" to the final solution of "Those who have this belief and will not discard it should should be rounded up and forced to recant it or reeducated out of it"

Slippery slopes folks



cpK69 -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 1:11:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

Well you are in part going from the ground and being transported by the wind through the air.



I just thought it was called something other than 'technically'.

quote:

As for us changing/knowledge or knowledge/changing us..Well that may be a chicken and the egg discussion


Could be... [;)]



Icarys -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 1:15:16 PM)

quote:

I just thought it was called something other than 'technically'.

Hey Kim..Did you go to Alaska to see Icarys last week?

Yes I did and I saw so much widlife..It was fantastic!

How did you get there..Did you drive?

No I had to fly! :>

(Like a bird)



chiaThePet -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 2:36:20 PM)


Ladies and Germs, with all humble servitude, I present the Collarme Actors Guild in a stunning rendition of,


"What Ever Happened To Baby Jesus"


Starring The Word Made Man as Baby Jesus Hudson
 
Co-starring Stephen Hawkins as Blanche Hudson


We join our actors at the top of the stairs.


Blanche; "Do you remember when I first arrived here after the creation?"

Baby Jesus; "You promised you wouldn't talk about that."

Blanche; "I know I did, but I'm still in this chair." "After all these years, I'm still in this chair."

Baby Jesus; "Doesn't that give you some kind of responsibility, Mr. Science Know It All?"

Blanche; "Jesus, I'm just trying to explain to you how things really are." "You wouldn't be
               be able to say these awful things to me.......if I weren't still in this chair!"

Baby Jesus; "But you are Blanche, you are in that chair!"

Blanche; "What are you doing Baby Jesus, we're too close to the edge!"

Baby Jesus; "Just testing a little theory on gravity Blanche." "You know Blanche, that fundamental
                   interaction of nature in which objects, you Blanche, and mass, the stairs Blanche,
                   attract one another." "Gravitation is most familiar as the agent that gives weight to
                   objects with mass, that would be you Blanche, and causes them to fall to the ground,
                   again you Blanche, when dropped."  

Blanche; "No Baby Jesus, noooo!" "God help me!"

Baby Jesus; "Yes Blanche, sooner or later they all call out to Daddy."
                      
Baby Jesus; "I've written a letter to Daddy."
                   "His address is heaven above"
                   "I've written Dear Daddy we miss you....
                    and know you are with us to love."

Curtain.

To view this selection in Spanish, presione por favor el numero dos.

"Que Paso Con Baby Jesus?"

chia* (the pet)



StrangerThan -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 5:45:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Nope. If something influences you- it can be detected. Note- this does not mean that with our available detectors, we should be able to find the creator of the universe- hell, we can't even find a habitable planet outside of this one....just that in theory, if God exists- he/she is detectable.

Sam


I'm not here to debate physics with you Sam. From reading the thread, you already know more about the subject than I'll ever spend time trying to learn.

What I think though is this, believers can agree with you in one sense, that being God should be detectable. Where the agreement probably ends is they can and will insist that he is currently detectable and always has been. The issue is what instrument you choose. They can and will point to works done in his name by the various religions involved as evidence that his will exists on earth and is empirically observable. To whit, the counter argument where God is held responsible for evil acts done by man falls flat in that the acts of man are not the acts of God.

I thought about this in terms of discussion with my father who is devoutly christian. I imagined saying something like, dad, I got this government grant of 50 trillion dollars to build a god detector. I then imagined him saying something like you make me think of a man who has never seen a tree and wants to build something to detect it, who then sits in a forest thinking there are no trees because they don';t behave the way he assumed they would. Put the money towards a good cause and simply look around.

Which brings to the forefront another question in my mind. If influence means an object an be detected, then Christianity is based upon what amounts to a 2000 year old memory. The influence is current but the creator of that influence no longer exists in a frame by which he can be physically detected. So, I';m wondering how the theory, law, whatever it is deals with memories we actually do not have that in turn influence how we live life and what we believe. I'm curious because the same concept holds true for most religions.



samboct -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 6:47:49 PM)

StrangerThan

The physics argument is that in our physical world, for changes to be affected, whatever's doing it has to have mass and energy. You can't move a rock if you don't have momentum (mass x velocity). If something has momentum- it can be detected. Scientists aren't saying that God can't be detected- they're saying that he/she hasn't been. This isn't an inference argument which is what believers are using. This is prove/disprove a hypothesis on the basis of data. However, since you can't prove something doesn't exist by not finding it (it can always be further away than you can see.) the believers can always say that God is beyond detector range.

The Heisenberg comment is that the observer and the observed have an interaction- the concept of a disembodied observer is impossible. The process of observation affects the observer. If an object gives off photons that are absorbed by the observer- that can be detected. So the concept of a God hovering around watching us- means that if there is such a God- he/she can be detected.

The problem is that God is bound by the limits of space/time. If God is beyond detector range, then he/she is far enough out for the speed of light lag to make he/she impotent for day to day issues. Also the idea that God hears our thoughts- well, he/she would need a very sensitive detector to pick up brain waves- and from how far away? Again, a sensitivity problem- and a massive detector needed.

Start seeing why scientists are skeptical that God as described by religions exists? Just doesn't make physical sense.

Sorry- not following your memory comment. From my perspective, knowledge can be passed through generations through learning. It's why the printing press is probably the most important human invention of all time.

Sam



Hillwilliam -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 6:53:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

It's why the printing press is probably the most important human invention of all time.

Sam



I've said many a time that if the Catholic Church could have seen the future, Gutenberg (sp) would have been burned at the stake.



Icarys -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 7:03:38 PM)

quote:

Start seeing why scientists are skeptical that God as described by religions exists? Just doesn't make physical sense.


Hey Sam,

I'm just going to comment on this one line. I agree with what you've said otherwise above.

Even though we think we have figured out how some of this has come to be we still haven't addressed the bigger question in my mind. Why.

Even if we come to a point where we think we've got a solid base of understanding how it's happened. I still see it as a long way off when your dealing with something as vast as the universe and all of the possible things we still have to explore and find/factor in to all of these equations..

No doubt Hawking's is a genius but much like Newton and Einstein...His ideas in time I predict will be found lacking...Keeping history and future potential findings in mind to me... it makes logical sense.

Edited for clarity: Is the question "why" going to make sense to us? It doesn't make a lot of sense at all that it was just here...I say the question "why" is just as important as how.



Brain -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 7:19:27 PM)

Yes I believe those questions will be answered. I don't think people hundreds of years ago expected us to be able to watch television or talk on telephones or go to the moon. People did not expect things like that to happen. And I expect in the future we will answer those questions and we will cure all the diseases and people will live to be hundreds of years old and many more ‘miracles’ will happen.
quote:

Brain do you believe there will come a time when we will know unequivocally the absolute truth and workings of the Universe? I mean will we be able to understand and prove how the Universe can spontaneous create its self? Will we understand what was before the beginning and what will be after the end?

I think not...so... I believe philosophy is as good a way as theoretical science to attempt to grasp a logical understanding of the possibilities.

How else can you describe the magic of something from nothing in its literal sense if not by philosophy?

Butch



StrangerThan -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 7:31:41 PM)

Sam,

I understand why scientists are skeptical and why believers are skeptical of scientists. I've been on both sides of that stance at some point in life in personal terms. The scientists assume that God will behave according to laws of physics which believers assume God himself created not to govern himself, but to govern his creations.

But influence in terms of memory is influence without observation. In other words, I am influenced, not in a physical state, but I suppose what would be a meta-physical state by teachings from 2000 years ago, regardless of how I learn them. I can observe that influence in other people, and parallel influences in other religions which means the influence migrates from meta-physical to physical acts wherein no observable originator of that influence can be found. Yet the influence exists, and perpetrates action. Does that make sense? I'm not sure it makes sense to me but it seems like there's a place there that isn't accounted for in terms action/reaction.

And for most religions, there is a bad guy who is responsible for all the other influences. It's a neat package in a way



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 8:03:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

It's not a link like I asked. You think this concludes beyond a shadow of a doubt the big bang theory? I never said nor implied that.

This isn't something out of nothing BTW because it states if you'll read more on it instead of posturing, that the vacuum of space is indeed seething with "quantum fluctuations of different frequencies"..These lab tests have reproduced very limited results..Hardly proof of the big bang nor do they back up Hawking's theories. The vacuum is the definition of "nothingness". Of course theyve produced limited results...they take enormous amounts of energy. It only takes one. Back up Hawking's theories? Depends on which ones you mean, it backs up all of his theories related to the topic at hand though.






kdsub -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/6/2010 11:20:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Yes I believe those questions will be answered. I don't think people hundreds of years ago expected us to be able to watch television or talk on telephones or go to the moon. People did not expect things like that to happen. And I expect in the future we will answer those questions and we will cure all the diseases and people will live to be hundreds of years old and many more ‘miracles’ will happen.


Could happen of course as you say all things are possible… especially if it is possible to create something from nothing.

But listen to yourself Brain you are defending magic, all from nothing spontaneously…how is magic easier for you to believe then Genesis?

Was not Genesis all from nothing as well? Why can you believe this fantastic notion of Hawkins and not at least consider Genesis a possibility?

Both are only believable with faith not quantitative proof…Why is one messenger of the same message more believable to you IF you have a truly unprejudiced mind?

Butch



Kirata -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/7/2010 1:28:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Was not Genesis all from nothing as well?

Well, no...

The masses of particles are (literally) frequencies of vibration patterns in the sea of energy out of which our universe has arisen. If that energy was quiescent, potential, the universe as we know it would not exist; all would be dark and void, empty of any "thing" but not nothing. Thus...

And the earth was without form, and void; darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. ~Genesis 1:2-3

Clearly not a case of, "something from nothing." That describes something giving rise to the universe by stirring the "deep" into activity, specifically by speaking the universe into being (speech being a species of vibration).

K.



samboct -> RE: Hawking: God Did Not Create Universe (9/7/2010 6:23:00 AM)

Icarys

Scientists are good at figuring out the whats and the hows. The whys- well, that's another matter. One of the toughest questions a grad student had to try to answer during a presentation was from an MD who asked- why does chromium form chromium(VI)? (or something of a similar fundamental nature.) The answer can boil down to - Ask God.

Centuries ago, the distinction between science and philosophy was nonexistent- the study of the world was considered natural philosophy. But when the Catholic church ruled much of the planet, it was clear that science could begin to offer a challenge to the church's authority. Science shows how the claims of organized religion ring hollow as to the nature of god. God cannot be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent-or we could have detected him/her. God would have mass and would perturb orbits. Religion imbued the creator with impossible powers, so that religions became wars of my invisible friend can beat up your invisible friend. Not surprisingly, the effect and utility of religion has waned.

So religion cut the cord to science- to the detriment of both. Science has proceeded down paths where all too often, we try to stuff the genie back into the bottle. And religion has retreated to fantasy, where instead of being able to provide guidance based on solid teachings and rational thought, religion requires a suspension of disbelief, much like in the movies. "Faith" should not be a necessary precondition for religion.

Also- the debate about the existence of a creator does not serve science well, because it's lousy science. One needs to create a hypothesis and gather date to either prove/disprove the hypothesis. If the data cannot be gathered because it is irretrievably lost (say, during the big bang) then having a limit on what science can and cannot know is acceptable. But making claims where there can be no data to prove things one way or another is bad science- it sets up science as a religion since it requires faith.

StrangerThan

There have been folks that have calculated out the energy of information- Hawkings is one of them. I've never paid much attention, but you seem to be making something of an exception for the teachings of Jesus, where I find none necessary. If Jesus teachings still resonate after 2000 years, perhaps it's because he understood humanity well. No divine intervention for his message necessary....


Sam



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625