Guest Al Klein Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:03:20 -0800, Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: >On 12/13/06 1:46 PM, in article >1166046362.851427.204430@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "tereshka@gmail.com" ><tereshka@gmail.com> wrote: >> Theories about deities and theories about the natural world are not at >> all on an equal footing. Looking at the history of science, there has >> been improvements in understanding as new theories replaced or more >> commonly expanded on the old. What we thought was the whole story at >> one point turns out to be a special case of a wider theory. We >> understand better and better how things work, and we can show why that >> is so. Theories about religion can hardly say the same. There is no >> data that can change a religion. >I suppose the observer's death (in my case, "me") isn't a valid data point? It's a very valid data point. Have you discussed it with any people who have been dead? (There are a few who read in alt.atheism.) >I must be misremembering. The No-Boundary Proposal is a theory regarding >the topology of the universe that explains the observed universe by making >the universe spatially finite (and explains how the universe can be >expanding after the Big Bang, but does not require infinite space). I >didn't really classify that proposal as being one that is >creation-event-related. >The idea of a singularity in the Big Bang theory (regardless of the topology >of the resulting universe) is what I was referring to. Where did the >singularity come from? What came before the singularity? Evidently you don't understand Hawking or Feynman. In imaginary time there was no "before". -- rukbat at optonline dot net "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 On 13 Dec 2006 15:38:10 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >> Less of an excuse for what? >For blatantly missing the obvious, that we live in a world created by >God. It's only "obvious" if you've already decided that it's true. That's called assuming your conclusion. >> Oh great. I predict the next phrase you co-opt from physics after >> "closed system" will be "tunneling." Like I said before, trying to >> impress people with jargon is lame. >Kind of a neat concept, you have to admit It's neat to be lame? -- rukbat at optonline dot net "A myth is a fixed way of looking at the world which cannot be destroyed because, looked at through the myth, all evidence supports the myth." - Edward De Bono (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 tereshka@gmail.com wrote: > Chris kirjoitti: > > > tereshka@gmail.com wrote: > > > Someone kirjoitti: > > > > > > > I think the point they're trying to make isn't whether or not virtual > > > > particles are real, but where do virtual particles come from? The > > > > implication is that they come from "outside existence"--and if such > > > > > > > > Of course, the idea that virtual particles just magically appear is only one > > > > hypothesis (and not a generally accepted one). Last time I looked into this > > > > topic, the general consensus was that they did originate from THIS universe > > > > and just appear in a vacuum due to a quantum tunneling effect. To get a > > > > general idea of this, remember that in quantum physics, the existence of > > > > particles in any particular space/time is really a result of probability; > > > > there is a probability (an infinitesimally small one) that all the particles > > > > that make up me , for example, are really in the middle of a neutron star. > > > > The theory is that if fundamentally Heisenberg was right, we should be > > > > observing particles appearing out of nowhere and then disappearing again > > > > (I'm glossing over a lot of detail here such as anti-particles and particle > > > > pairs... But this is the general gist, I think). > > > > > > > > The existence of virtual particles doesn't prove or disprove the existence > > > > of God. What science has are theories... And lest we forget, until > > > > relatively recently, Science was saying there were only 4 elements, the > > > > earth was the center of the universe, and man cannot travel faster than the > > > > speed of sound. They're just theories, and most of them are extremely > > > > difficult to test--even mathematically. > > > > > > But they're theories that can be tested. I disagree with the assessment > > > that it's extremely difficult to test scientific theories even in > > > practice. > > > > disagree! I just listened too a very entertaining program on string > > theory: > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html > > I'm pretty sure they mentioned more than once that these scientific > > theories were difficult to test! > > This is more like science fiction and a leap of faith to me. > > Did they also mention that a lot of people question whether string > theory is a legitimate scientific theory because of that? If it doesn't > make testable predictions, it's not a scientific theory. Even if > scientists come up with it. > Yes, but there is also a lot of optimism that the theory is true. Here is an quote: "Will string theory turn out to be a dead end? Most string theorists believe that such an elegant and mathematically beautiful idea couldn't be completely wrong." But then again this optimism was by a string theorist After a little more reflection, if someone can be opened minded enough to think that the string theory is plausible, then why not a creator of the universe? string theory talks about 11 dimensions, parallel universes right next door, a microscopic realm that defies any common sense and not necessarily obey any rules and laws that we are used to in our world. They theorize that if there is intelligent life in one membrane and then intelligent life in another membrane, then it might be possible to communicate with other worlds! Why is it so inconceivable to think that a God who transcends this world could communicate with us? They mention how two branes carrying parallel universes collide and result in a big bang. So you've got something outside of our universe that caused the bang... They claim that our universe might have other parallel universes with a completely different laws of physics. It amazes me that if your imagination can stretch this far, why can't it consider a God outside of this world who created us and everything in it. These concepts are loaded with things beyond this universe. > > > > > Of course, some experiments are harder to run than others, > > > but by effort expended one could argue with the same implications that > > > microchips are extremely difficult to design. They are. It's much, much > > > harder than science IMO. Some scientific theories are extremely simple > > > to test - we all did it (I hope!) in high school. Newtonian mechanics > > > is hardly obscure. In addition, usually the mathematical tools for > > > science had already been developed by mathematicians - like Dirac and > > > linear algebra. With computers, science is better and easier than ever > > > before. > > > > > > Theories about deities and theories about the natural world are not at > > > all on an equal footing. Looking at the history of science, there has > > > been improvements in understanding as new theories replaced or more > > > commonly expanded on the old. What we thought was the whole story at > > > one point turns out to be a special case of a wider theory. We > > > understand better and better how things work, and we can show why that > > > is so. Theories about religion can hardly say the same. There is no > > > data that can change a religion. > > > > > > > Which leads me to my own at-the-whim Theory of Creation: "no matter how you > > > > try to explain existence, eventually the theory will have to resort to > > > > 'that's the way it's always been.'" > > > > > > I think you're expecting too little of science... What do you think of > > > the No-Boundary Proposal? It's a legitimate scientific theory since it > > > makes predictions, the predictions are consistent with what we see, and > > > it can explain the beginning of the universe. > > > > > > Also... You're not seriously arguing that the universe has existed > > > forever, right? > > > > Actually it wasn't too long ago that the predominant theory was the > > stead state theory which most of you all bought... which if I'm not > > mistaken had the view that the universe existed forever.. > > "Most of you all"? I don't know who "we all" are here, but the > steady-state theory as far as I know was never a dominant theory > (although my science history may be wrong here, not having been around > during its heyday) - it was developed concurrently with the big bang > theory. > > > I do agree though, keep moving forward. The big bang theory is much > > more in line with something written in scripture thousands of years ago > > -- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... Your > > research just might find God or atleast give people less and less of an > > excuse. > > You seriously think science is going to uncover god? No. I think science can be a means to provide more circumstantial evidence of His existence; but that is about as far as I'll take it. There will always be an aspect of faith necessary. > God is not a > testable hypothesis, hence it's not something science can "find". Also, > you're leaving out that the No-Boundary Proposal avoids some of the > problems with the hot big bang theory, making it in that sense better > than the big bang, and it eliminates any need for god for the existence > of the universe. I'm sure that's not really something you want to hear. > > > I do like the idea of tunneling through into "being"... Seems like > > that is something to run with. > > One does not run with science, one derives or measures. Very carefully. > I think you know that I'm using a figure of speech. But I understand your point. > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/13/06 9:19 AM, in article > > > > 1166030388.986976.83630@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" > > > > <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Al Klein wrote: > > > > >> On 13 Dec 2006 08:43:39 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Chris wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>>> First, who says this supernatural being has to be part of any time and > > > > >>>> space. If you > > > > >>>> can assume that a virtual particle goes in and out of existence, > > > > >> > > > > >>> No one is assuming anything. Virtual particles have been found. Do you > > > > >>> understand that? They are real. > > > > >> > > > > >> And gods haven't been found. They aren't real. > > > > > > > > > > Oh come on, Al. They've only had six thousand years to come up with > > > > > some evidence. Aren't you jumping the gun? Give them some time...(is > > > > > there a smiley thingy for eyeball rolling?) > > > > > Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 On 12/13/06 7:10 PM, in article apf1o2tsgf3b9tghqbmpits8rpfakb1d2l@4ax.com, "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:03:20 -0800, Someone > <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: > >> On 12/13/06 1:46 PM, in article >> 1166046362.851427.204430@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "tereshka@gmail.com" >> <tereshka@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Theories about deities and theories about the natural world are not at >>> all on an equal footing. Looking at the history of science, there has >>> been improvements in understanding as new theories replaced or more >>> commonly expanded on the old. What we thought was the whole story at >>> one point turns out to be a special case of a wider theory. We >>> understand better and better how things work, and we can show why that >>> is so. Theories about religion can hardly say the same. There is no >>> data that can change a religion. > >> I suppose the observer's death (in my case, "me") isn't a valid data point? > > It's a very valid data point. Have you discussed it with any people > who have been dead? (There are a few who read in alt.atheism.) > But, in the end, that perspective is really the only one that matters. >> I must be misremembering. The No-Boundary Proposal is a theory regarding >> the topology of the universe that explains the observed universe by making >> the universe spatially finite (and explains how the universe can be >> expanding after the Big Bang, but does not require infinite space). I >> didn't really classify that proposal as being one that is >> creation-event-related. > >> The idea of a singularity in the Big Bang theory (regardless of the topology >> of the resulting universe) is what I was referring to. Where did the >> singularity come from? What came before the singularity? > > Evidently you don't understand Hawking or Feynman. In imaginary time > there was no "before". Actually, I do understand Hawking, Thorne,... And although I am familiar with Feynman as it relates to those penguin diagrams, I don't know in which context you're referencing him when it comes to describing the singularity... At any rate, I was using this to illustrate the point that some people don't have a problem with the concept of a singularity being outside of the natural laws of the universe where space and time are non-existent or meaningless... But some people have a problem understanding that others can believe that God exhibits the same behavior. To me that's hypocrisy. Frankly, I don't know. And to me, it's irrelevant. You can believe what you believe without me trying to force any of my beliefs on you (so I hope I don't give you the impression I'm trying to convince you of anything). Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 On 13 Dec 2006 19:55:56 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >After a little more reflection, if someone can be opened minded enough >to think that the string theory is plausible, then why not a creator of >the universe? Because there's evidence for string theory - there's no evidence of any creator. >They theorize that if there is intelligent life in one >membrane and then intelligent life in another membrane, then it might >be possible to communicate with other worlds! Why is it so >inconceivable to think that a God who transcends this world could >communicate with us? Because there's evidence for branes - there's no evidence of any god. > They mention how two branes carrying parallel >universes collide and result in a big bang. So you've got something >outside of our universe that caused the bang... They claim that our >universe might have other parallel universes with a completely >different laws of physics. It amazes me that if your imagination can >stretch this far That's your problem - you think that science is whatever people can imagine. It's not. > why can't it consider a God Because there's never been any evidence of any god. >No. I think science can be a means to provide more circumstantial >evidence of His existence Science doesn't provide evidence, it investigates observed evidence. And there's never been any evidence of any god. Are you beginning to see the common thread? Investigating a god isn't science, it's religion. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against abortionists is justifiable homocide ." - "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:56:13 -0800, Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: >On 12/13/06 7:10 PM, in article apf1o2tsgf3b9tghqbmpits8rpfakb1d2l@4ax.com, >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:03:20 -0800, Someone >> <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: >> >>> On 12/13/06 1:46 PM, in article >>> 1166046362.851427.204430@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "tereshka@gmail.com" >>> <tereshka@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> Theories about deities and theories about the natural world are not at >>>> all on an equal footing. Looking at the history of science, there has >>>> been improvements in understanding as new theories replaced or more >>>> commonly expanded on the old. What we thought was the whole story at >>>> one point turns out to be a special case of a wider theory. We >>>> understand better and better how things work, and we can show why that >>>> is so. Theories about religion can hardly say the same. There is no >>>> data that can change a religion. >> >>> I suppose the observer's death (in my case, "me") isn't a valid data point? >> >> It's a very valid data point. Have you discussed it with any people >> who have been dead? (There are a few who read in alt.atheism.) >But, in the end, that perspective is really the only one that matters. Then ask those who have been dead. >At any rate, I was using this to illustrate the point that >some people don't have a problem with the concept of a singularity being >outside of the natural laws of the universe where space and time are >non-existent or meaningless. Unless I'm totally mistaken, that's not the Non-Boundary Proposal. >But some people have a problem understanding >that others can believe that God exhibits the same behavior. There's never been any evidence of any god. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - G W Bush (Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000) (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 On 13 Dec 2006 10:35:08 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <1166034908.412360.218740@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com> >Sorry for top posting. I'd be very interested in any of your replies to >this post. I regret that I am unable to devote the time to anything more than cursory interspersed observations. I trust that this will be better than nothing. >Someone wrote: >> I think the point they're trying to make isn't whether or not virtual >> particles are real, but where do virtual particles come from? The >> implication is that they come from "outside existence"--and if such >> particles can originate from outside the universe, then why can't God live >> there? I don't have the gist of the thread up to here, so cannot make comment on what others may or may not be thinking, but it seems incredibly juvenile credulous to postulate something for which there has never been a scrap of any evidence presented in recorded history, let alone distort real science in a pathetic attempt to justify the delusion. >> Of course, the idea that virtual particles just magically appear is only one >> hypothesis (and not a generally accepted one). No one thinks they they "magically" appear. This is a straw man of very flimsy construction. >>Last time I looked into this >> topic, the general consensus was that they did originate from THIS universe >> and just appear in a vacuum due to a quantum tunneling effect. Once again, I have not read of a sible scientest who even vaguely thinks that these virtual particles arise from any sort of quantum tunnelling effect. I don't where "someone" extracted this from, but I can guess. >To get a >> general idea of this, remember that in quantum physics, the existence of >> particles in any particular space/time is really a result of probability; Rubbish. They are not a "result" of probability at all. This fellow should really have boned up on the basics before deeming to lecture about this complex subject. >> there is a probability (an infinitesimally small one) that all the particles >> that make up me , for example, are really in the middle of a neutron star. >> The theory is that if fundamentally Heisenberg was right, we should be >> observing particles appearing out of nowhere and then disappearing again "The Theory"? >> (I'm glossing over a lot of detail here such as anti-particles and particle >> pairs... But this is the general gist, I think). Once again, I urge "Someone" to actually have studied the subject formally. I am quite unable to divine the "general gist" that he is aiming at, unless it is the general gist that a little learning is dangerous. >> The existence of virtual particles doesn't prove or disprove the existence >> of God. Utterly facile. >>What science has are theories... And lest we forget, until Even more facile... >> relatively recently, Science was saying there were only 4 elements, the >> earth was the center of the universe, and man cannot travel faster than the >> speed of sound. They're just theories, and most of them are extremely >> difficult to test--even mathematically. Even if this is 100% correct, so what? >> Which leads me to my own at-the-whim Theory of Creation: "no matter how you >> try to explain existence, eventually the theory will have to resort to >> 'that's the way it's always been.'" Facile to the point of being quite meaningless. I thought "someone" was lecturing us about quantum physics? Why then does he tail off into infantile sophistry? Executive Summary: "Sopmeone" knows as much about Quantum Physics as can be picked up from a few episodes of the Simpsons, and appears to pull the rest of it out of his/her backside. It should not be lecturing, it should listening. But I get the impression that it is attempting to use pop-science to "prove" the existence of his puerile sky-pixie. That should be a criminal offense to prostitute the truth for the purposes of personal lies. >> On 12/13/06 9:19 AM, in article >> 1166030388.986976.83630@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" >> <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > Al Klein wrote: >> >> On 13 Dec 2006 08:43:39 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Chris wrote: >> >> >> >>>> First, who says this supernatural being has to be part of any time and >> >>>> space. If you >> >>>> can assume that a virtual particle goes in and out of existence, >> >> >> >>> No one is assuming anything. Virtual particles have been found. Do you >> >>> understand that? They are real. >> >> >> >> And gods haven't been found. They aren't real. >> > >> > Oh come on, Al. They've only had six thousand years to come up with >> > some evidence. Aren't you jumping the gun? Give them some time...(is >> > there a smiley thingy for eyeball rolling?) -- Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 tereshka@gmail.com wrote: > Chris kirjoitti: > > > tereshka@gmail.com wrote: > > > Someone kirjoitti: > > > > > > > I think the point they're trying to make isn't whether or not virtual > > > > particles are real, but where do virtual particles come from? The > > > > implication is that they come from "outside existence"--and if such > > > > > > > > Of course, the idea that virtual particles just magically appear is only one > > > > hypothesis (and not a generally accepted one). Last time I looked into this > > > > topic, the general consensus was that they did originate from THIS universe > > > > and just appear in a vacuum due to a quantum tunneling effect. To get a > > > > general idea of this, remember that in quantum physics, the existence of > > > > particles in any particular space/time is really a result of probability; > > > > there is a probability (an infinitesimally small one) that all the particles > > > > that make up me , for example, are really in the middle of a neutron star. > > > > The theory is that if fundamentally Heisenberg was right, we should be > > > > observing particles appearing out of nowhere and then disappearing again > > > > (I'm glossing over a lot of detail here such as anti-particles and particle > > > > pairs... But this is the general gist, I think). > > > > > > > > The existence of virtual particles doesn't prove or disprove the existence > > > > of God. What science has are theories... And lest we forget, until > > > > relatively recently, Science was saying there were only 4 elements, the > > > > earth was the center of the universe, and man cannot travel faster than the > > > > speed of sound. They're just theories, and most of them are extremely > > > > difficult to test--even mathematically. > > > > > > But they're theories that can be tested. I disagree with the assessment > > > that it's extremely difficult to test scientific theories even in > > > practice. > > > > disagree! I just listened too a very entertaining program on string > > theory: > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html > > I'm pretty sure they mentioned more than once that these scientific > > theories were difficult to test! > > This is more like science fiction and a leap of faith to me. > > Did they also mention that a lot of people question whether string > theory is a legitimate scientific theory because of that? If it doesn't > make testable predictions, it's not a scientific theory. Even if > scientists come up with it. > > > > > > Of course, some experiments are harder to run than others, > > > but by effort expended one could argue with the same implications that > > > microchips are extremely difficult to design. They are. It's much, much > > > harder than science IMO. Some scientific theories are extremely simple > > > to test - we all did it (I hope!) in high school. Newtonian mechanics > > > is hardly obscure. In addition, usually the mathematical tools for > > > science had already been developed by mathematicians - like Dirac and > > > linear algebra. With computers, science is better and easier than ever > > > before. > > > > > > Theories about deities and theories about the natural world are not at > > > all on an equal footing. Looking at the history of science, there has > > > been improvements in understanding as new theories replaced or more > > > commonly expanded on the old. What we thought was the whole story at > > > one point turns out to be a special case of a wider theory. We > > > understand better and better how things work, and we can show why that > > > is so. Theories about religion can hardly say the same. There is no > > > data that can change a religion. > > > > > > > Which leads me to my own at-the-whim Theory of Creation: "no matter how you > > > > try to explain existence, eventually the theory will have to resort to > > > > 'that's the way it's always been.'" > > > > > > I think you're expecting too little of science... What do you think of > > > the No-Boundary Proposal? It's a legitimate scientific theory since it > > > makes predictions, the predictions are consistent with what we see, and > > > it can explain the beginning of the universe. > > > > > > Also... You're not seriously arguing that the universe has existed > > > forever, right? > > > > Actually it wasn't too long ago that the predominant theory was the > > stead state theory which most of you all bought... which if I'm not > > mistaken had the view that the universe existed forever.. > > "Most of you all"? I don't know who "we all" are here, but the > steady-state theory as far as I know was never a dominant theory > (although my science history may be wrong here, not having been around > during its heyday) - it was developed concurrently with the big bang > theory. > > > I do agree though, keep moving forward. The big bang theory is much > > more in line with something written in scripture thousands of years ago > > -- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... Your > > research just might find God or atleast give people less and less of an > > excuse. > > You seriously think science is going to uncover god? God is not a > testable hypothesis, hence it's not something science can "find". Also, > you're leaving out that the No-Boundary Proposal avoids some of the > problems with the hot big bang theory, making it in that sense better > than the big bang, and it eliminates any need for god for the existence > of the universe. I'm sure that's not really something you want to hear. Actually he seems more open minded than the rest of you SUE: To oversimplify your theories hugely, and I hope you'll forgive me for this, Stephen, you once believed, as I understand it, that there was a point of creation, a big bang, but you no longer believe that to be the case. You believe that there was no beginning and there is no end, that the universe is self-contained. Does that mean that there was no act of creation and therefore that there's no place for God? STEPHEN: Yes, you have oversimplified. I still believe the universe has a beginning in real time, at the big bang. But there's another kind of time, imaginary time, at right angles to real time, in which the universe has no beginning or end. This would mean that the way the universe began would be determined by the laws of physics. One wouldn't have to say that God chose to set the universe going in some arbitrary way that we couldn't understand. It says nothing about whether or not God exists - just that He isn't arbitrary. And this... ....the universe has not existed for ever. Rather, THE UNIVERSE, AND TIME ITSELF, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of REAL TIME, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began, would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, spacetime is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. > > > I do like the idea of tunneling through into "being"... Seems like > > that is something to run with. > > One does not run with science, one derives or measures. Very carefully. > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/13/06 9:19 AM, in article > > > > 1166030388.986976.83630@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" > > > > <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Al Klein wrote: > > > > >> On 13 Dec 2006 08:43:39 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Chris wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>>> First, who says this supernatural being has to be part of any time and > > > > >>>> space. If you > > > > >>>> can assume that a virtual particle goes in and out of existence, > > > > >> > > > > >>> No one is assuming anything. Virtual particles have been found. Do you > > > > >>> understand that? They are real. > > > > >> > > > > >> And gods haven't been found. They aren't real. > > > > > > > > > > Oh come on, Al. They've only had six thousand years to come up with > > > > > some evidence. Aren't you jumping the gun? Give them some time...(is > > > > > there a smiley thingy for eyeball rolling?) > > > > > Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 On 12/13/06 8:35 PM, in article a0l1o2hnme6hslo7n5j26u0dl2ha72uutb@4ax.com, "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:56:13 -0800, Someone > <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: .. .. <<SNIP>> .. > >> At any rate, I was using this to illustrate the point that >> some people don't have a problem with the concept of a singularity being >> outside of the natural laws of the universe where space and time are >> non-existent or meaningless. > > Unless I'm totally mistaken, that's not the Non-Boundary Proposal. > Oh! I see, you're referring to Hawking's NO Boundary Proposal" not the Big Bang theory regarding the topology of the Universe as having no edges (as in a sphere)--which I was taught was the non-boundary topology of the universe. Apologies, I should have read your context more clearly. And you're right, I am not that clear on Hawking's proposal--since it basically invents "imaginary time" in order to explain away the paradoxes caused by the concept of a singularity. From what I understood, he was basically saying that the Big Bang had a beginning and has an end... But that is in "real time." There is another time perpendicular to "real time" called Imaginary time--but it isn't the kind of time we experience--in which the singularity can exist without breaking the laws of physics (apologies, I am really hazy about this and need to read Hawking's BHOT again). It was way out there and frankly sounded a lot like more random imaginings from a brilliant scientist (Hawking has been wrong before, and admits it... So I wouldn't count on one of his theories being completely infallible). He could be right, of course... But, in my opinion, so could those Creationists (and their model is so much simpler!) >> But some people have a problem understanding >> that others can believe that God exhibits the same behavior. > > There's never been any evidence of any god. Still doesn't mean that gods don't exist. So it remains a personal choice which will ultimately be tested when I die. You seriously aren't ridiculing all these people for making a personal choice that has absolutely no impact on you, are you? Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: > On 13 Dec 2006 15:38:10 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Less of an excuse for what? > >> For blatantly missing the obvious, that we live in a world created by >> God. > > It's only "obvious" if you've already decided that it's true. That's > called assuming your conclusion. No, it is called postulating the major premise. To postulate means to state a postulate. A postulate is a basic assumption that is accepted as true without proof. "We live in a world created by God". That is an example of a basic assumption that is accepted as true without proof. Now do you understand why there is no point in your asking anyone to post the objective verifiable evidence to support the simple claim that God exists? Under the rules of logic, one is not allowed to question whether a postulate is true because, by definition, a postulate is accepted as true without proof. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Al Klein wrote: > On 13 Dec 2006 19:55:56 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: > > >After a little more reflection, if someone can be opened minded enough > >to think that the string theory is plausible, then why not a creator of > >the universe? > > Because there's evidence for string theory - there's no evidence of > any creator. > > >They theorize that if there is intelligent life in one > >membrane and then intelligent life in another membrane, then it might > >be possible to communicate with other worlds! Why is it so > >inconceivable to think that a God who transcends this world could > >communicate with us? > > Because there's evidence for branes - there's no evidence of any god. > > > They mention how two branes carrying parallel > >universes collide and result in a big bang. So you've got something > >outside of our universe that caused the bang... They claim that our > >universe might have other parallel universes with a completely > >different laws of physics. It amazes me that if your imagination can > >stretch this far > > That's your problem - you think that science is whatever people can > imagine. It's not. > > > why can't it consider a God > > Because there's never been any evidence of any god. > > >No. I think science can be a means to provide more circumstantial > >evidence of His existence > > Science doesn't provide evidence, it investigates observed evidence. > And there's never been any evidence of any god. > > Are you beginning to see the common thread? Sure, you've been brain washed into thinking that everything can be explained through science and you risk your eternity on a belief system that has many gaps. > > Investigating a god isn't science, it's religion. > -- > rukbat at optonline dot net > "We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn > fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against > abortionists is justifiable homocide ." > - "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill > (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> said: <...> >After a little more reflection, if someone can be opened minded enough >to think that the string theory is plausible, then why not a creator of >the universe? string theory talks about 11 dimensions, parallel >universes right next door, a microscopic realm that defies any common >sense and not necessarily obey any rules and laws that we are used to >in our world. They theorize that if there is intelligent life in one >membrane and then intelligent life in another membrane, then it might >be possible to communicate with other worlds! Why is it so >inconceivable to think that a God who transcends this world could >communicate with us? They mention how two branes carrying parallel >universes collide and result in a big bang. So you've got something >outside of our universe that caused the bang... They claim that our >universe might have other parallel universes with a completely >different laws of physics. It amazes me that if your imagination can >stretch this far, why can't it consider a God outside of this world who >created us and everything in it. These concepts are loaded with things >beyond this universe. This represents a form of argument that is fallacious on its face: "If you accept the possible truth of idea A, even if it defies common sense, you are rationally obligated to accept the possible truth of any idea B, even if it defies common sense." (Of course if all you are saying it that "God" might be a powerful alien in a parallel universe, who made ours, that's a trivialization and equivocation of the God concept.) Furthermore, there is no compelling reason for lay people to "accept" the possible truth of string theory, at this point in time; certainly not in the same way as accepting the possibility of a creator god. That is, the implications must be considered. Testable implications are examined in order to evaluate a theory. What are the testable implications of your supposed "God theory"? WRT string theory, lay people are IMO justified in adopting a sceptical attitude, with an expectation that string theory will have to make sense. This is because science seeks explanations. Explanations make sense. So the goal is not achieved, yet, for most of us, by string theory. But our "common sense" may be altered such that string theory makes sense. After all, heliocentrism defies common sense, on first examination. -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> said: <...> > >Sure, you've been brain washed into thinking that everything can be >explained >through science and you risk your eternity on a belief system that has >many gaps. > Pascal's Wager Alert! -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> said: <...> > He >could be right, of course... But, in my opinion, so could those Creationists >(and their model is so much simpler!) <...> Adding God to what physics has to explain would not make it any simpler, IMO. -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Jim07D6 wrote: > "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> said: > > <...> > >After a little more reflection, if someone can be opened minded enough > >to think that the string theory is plausible, then why not a creator of > >the universe? string theory talks about 11 dimensions, parallel > >universes right next door, a microscopic realm that defies any common > >sense and not necessarily obey any rules and laws that we are used to > >in our world. They theorize that if there is intelligent life in one > >membrane and then intelligent life in another membrane, then it might > >be possible to communicate with other worlds! Why is it so > >inconceivable to think that a God who transcends this world could > >communicate with us? They mention how two branes carrying parallel > >universes collide and result in a big bang. So you've got something > >outside of our universe that caused the bang... They claim that our > >universe might have other parallel universes with a completely > >different laws of physics. It amazes me that if your imagination can > >stretch this far, why can't it consider a God outside of this world who > >created us and everything in it. These concepts are loaded with things > >beyond this universe. > > This represents a form of argument that is fallacious on its face: "If > you accept the possible truth of idea A, even if it defies common > sense, you are rationally obligated to accept the possible truth of > any idea B, even if it defies common sense." Actually my contention is with the subject of the thread: "What was God doing before he created the universe." If you can contend that their is truth that defies common sense, then you should also be opened up to the possibility of other truths that may defy common sense... That is what strikes me, the deeper you go into science, the less real it becomes, literally So from a truly science perspective, can you really prove anything? You've come up with theories like imaginary time to explain what was before real time! I just don't see the close mindedness the possibility atleast of a deity, especially if the some of the main arguments against this deity is the way he may decide to work in this life. Chris > > (Of course if all you are saying it that "God" might be a powerful > alien in a parallel universe, who made ours, that's a trivialization > and equivocation of the God concept.) > > Furthermore, there is no compelling reason for lay people to "accept" > the possible truth of string theory, at this point in time; certainly > not in the same way as accepting the possibility of a creator god. > That is, the implications must be considered. Testable implications > are examined in order to evaluate a theory. What are the testable > implications of your supposed "God theory"? > > WRT string theory, lay people are IMO justified in adopting a > sceptical attitude, with an expectation that string theory will have > to make sense. This is because science seeks explanations. > Explanations make sense. So the goal is not achieved, yet, for most of > us, by string theory. > > But our "common sense" may be altered such that string theory makes > sense. After all, heliocentrism defies common sense, on first > examination. > -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Michael Gray wrote: > On 13 Dec 2006 10:35:08 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> > wrote: > - Refer: <1166034908.412360.218740@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com> > >Sorry for top posting. I'd be very interested in any of your replies to > >this post. > > I regret that I am unable to devote the time to anything more than > cursory interspersed observations. > I trust that this will be better than nothing. > > >Someone wrote: > >> I think the point they're trying to make isn't whether or not virtual > >> particles are real, but where do virtual particles come from? The > >> implication is that they come from "outside existence"--and if such > >> particles can originate from outside the universe, then why can't God live > >> there? > > I don't have the gist of the thread up to here, so cannot make comment > on what others may or may not be thinking, but it seems incredibly > juvenile credulous to postulate something for which there has never > been a scrap of any evidence presented in recorded history, let alone > distort real science in a pathetic attempt to justify the delusion. > > >> Of course, the idea that virtual particles just magically appear is only one > >> hypothesis (and not a generally accepted one). > > No one thinks they they "magically" appear. > This is a straw man of very flimsy construction. > > >>Last time I looked into this > >> topic, the general consensus was that they did originate from THIS universe > >> and just appear in a vacuum due to a quantum tunneling effect. > > Once again, I have not read of a sible scientest who even vaguely > thinks that these virtual particles arise from any sort of quantum > tunnelling effect. > I don't where "someone" extracted this from, but I can guess. > > >To get a > >> general idea of this, remember that in quantum physics, the existence of > >> particles in any particular space/time is really a result of probability; > > Rubbish. > They are not a "result" of probability at all. > This fellow should really have boned up on the basics before deeming > to lecture about this complex subject. > > >> there is a probability (an infinitesimally small one) that all the particles > >> that make up me , for example, are really in the middle of a neutron star. > >> The theory is that if fundamentally Heisenberg was right, we should be > >> observing particles appearing out of nowhere and then disappearing again > > "The Theory"? > > >> (I'm glossing over a lot of detail here such as anti-particles and particle > >> pairs... But this is the general gist, I think). > > Once again, I urge "Someone" to actually have studied the subject > formally. > I am quite unable to divine the "general gist" that he is aiming at, > unless it is the general gist that a little learning is dangerous. > > >> The existence of virtual particles doesn't prove or disprove the existence > >> of God. > > Utterly facile. > > >>What science has are theories... And lest we forget, until > > Even more facile... > > >> relatively recently, Science was saying there were only 4 elements, the > >> earth was the center of the universe, and man cannot travel faster than the > >> speed of sound. They're just theories, and most of them are extremely > >> difficult to test--even mathematically. > > Even if this is 100% correct, so what? > > >> Which leads me to my own at-the-whim Theory of Creation: "no matter how you > >> try to explain existence, eventually the theory will have to resort to > >> 'that's the way it's always been.'" > > Facile to the point of being quite meaningless. > I thought "someone" was lecturing us about quantum physics? > Why then does he tail off into infantile sophistry? > > Executive Summary: > "Sopmeone" knows as much about Quantum Physics as can be picked up > from a few episodes of the Simpsons, and appears to pull the rest of > it out of his/her backside. > > It should not be lecturing, it should listening. > > But I get the impression that it is attempting to use pop-science to > "prove" the existence of his puerile sky-pixie. > That should be a criminal offense to prostitute the truth for the > purposes of personal lies. Thank you sir. Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> said: > >Jim07D6 wrote: >> "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> said: >> >> <...> >> >After a little more reflection, if someone can be opened minded enough >> >to think that the string theory is plausible, then why not a creator of >> >the universe? string theory talks about 11 dimensions, parallel >> >universes right next door, a microscopic realm that defies any common >> >sense and not necessarily obey any rules and laws that we are used to >> >in our world. They theorize that if there is intelligent life in one >> >membrane and then intelligent life in another membrane, then it might >> >be possible to communicate with other worlds! Why is it so >> >inconceivable to think that a God who transcends this world could >> >communicate with us? They mention how two branes carrying parallel >> >universes collide and result in a big bang. So you've got something >> >outside of our universe that caused the bang... They claim that our >> >universe might have other parallel universes with a completely >> >different laws of physics. It amazes me that if your imagination can >> >stretch this far, why can't it consider a God outside of this world who >> >created us and everything in it. These concepts are loaded with things >> >beyond this universe. >> >> This represents a form of argument that is fallacious on its face: "If >> you accept the possible truth of idea A, even if it defies common >> sense, you are rationally obligated to accept the possible truth of >> any idea B, even if it defies common sense." > >Actually my contention is with the subject of the thread: >"What was God doing before he created the universe." > >If you can contend that their is truth that defies common sense, then >you should >also be opened up to the possibility of other truths that may defy >common sense... >That is what strikes me, the deeper you go into science, the less real >it becomes, literally >So from a truly science perspective, can you really prove anything? >You've come up >with theories like imaginary time to explain what was before real time! > I just don't see >the close mindedness the possibility atleast of a deity, especially if >the some of the >main arguments against this deity is the way he may decide to work in >this life. <...> To argue that we should accept as possible, some things we don't understand, just because we accept some other things as actual, that we don't understand, is a fallacy of argumentation. Instead, the remedy is to stand back from accepting as true, something we don't understand. This means reserving judgement. A rare thing, hereabouts. -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: > > > On 13 Dec 2006 15:38:10 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> Less of an excuse for what? > > > >> For blatantly missing the obvious, that we live in a world created by > >> God. > > > > It's only "obvious" if you've already decided that it's true. That's > > called assuming your conclusion. > > No, it is called postulating the major premise. > > To postulate means to state a postulate. > > A postulate is a basic assumption that is accepted as true > without proof. > > "We live in a world created by God". That is an example of a > basic assumption that is accepted as true without proof. Sorry pal. A postulate can be something that is assumed to be true for the basis of argument, but you don't get to do that here. Atheists don't assume that the existence of god is true. Instead all you've offered is a hypothesis. You've claimed a premise. A premise can be valid or invalid, and atheists argue that your premise has not been proven true. > Now do you understand why there is no point in your asking anyone > to post the objective verifiable evidence to support the simple > claim that God exists? No, all you've shown is a lack of understanding of the English language. > Under the rules of logic, one is not allowed to question whether > a postulate is true because, by definition, a postulate is accepted > as true without proof. That is the lamest attempt at an argument I've seen in a long time. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 On 13 Dec 2006 21:11:18 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >tereshka@gmail.com wrote: >> You seriously think science is going to uncover god? God is not a >> testable hypothesis, hence it's not something science can "find". Also, >> you're leaving out that the No-Boundary Proposal avoids some of the >> problems with the hot big bang theory, making it in that sense better >> than the big bang, and it eliminates any need for god for the existence >> of the universe. I'm sure that's not really something you want to hear. >Actually he seems more open minded than the rest of you Hawking is an atheist, but he likes selling his books, and he knows that claiming that there's no evidence of any god would kill sales. (He said something to that effect once, but not in a public interview.) But he does say, in the interview you quoted, "It says nothing about whether or not God exists" - he doesn't address God in his science. >And this... >...the universe has not existed for ever. Rather, THE UNIVERSE, AND >TIME ITSELF, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years >ago. The beginning of REAL TIME, would have been a singularity, at >which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way >the universe began, would have been determined by the laws of physics, >if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in >the imaginary time direction, spacetime is finite in extent, but >doesn't have any boundary or edge. That last sentence means that in imaginary time (which is probably more "real" than "real time") the universe has always existed - it has no boundary condition, no beginning or end. -- rukbat at optonline dot net I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them. - Adlai E. Stevenson (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:33:00 -0800, Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote: >And you're right, I am not that clear on Hawking's proposal--since it >basically invents "imaginary time" Feynman invented the term, but imaginary time is the actual time dimension - real time is something we see, but imaginary time is probably more real. >From what I understood, he was >basically saying that the Big Bang had a beginning and has an end... But >that is in "real time." There is another time perpendicular to "real time" >called Imaginary time--but it isn't the kind of time we experience--in which >the singularity can exist without breaking the laws of physics (apologies, I >am really hazy about this and need to read Hawking's BHOT again). It was >way out there and frankly sounded a lot like more random imaginings from a >brilliant scientist (Hawking has been wrong before, and admits it... So I >wouldn't count on one of his theories being completely infallible). It is brilliant - and it's Feynman's concept, not Hawking's. >He could be right, of course... But, in my opinion, so could those Creationists >(and their model is so much simpler!) How can something more complex than the universe (God) be simpler than the universe? >>> But some people have a problem understanding >>> that others can believe that God exhibits the same behavior. >> There's never been any evidence of any god. >Still doesn't mean that gods don't exist. Doesn't mean that 10^37 gods don't exist, but no one wastes time researching all of them, so why waste time researching one member of that set? The Christian one is no different, in possibility of existence, than any of the others. >So it remains a personal choice which will ultimately be tested when I die. It's been tested each time anyone dies. And, from the few reports we have from those who died and came back to life, the test failed every time. >You seriously aren't ridiculing >all these people for making a personal choice that has absolutely no impact >on you, are you? You seriously wouldn't ridicule a supposedly sane adult for still believing in Santa Claus, would you? -- rukbat at optonline dot net "The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith." - Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:06:27 -0500, "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote: >On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Al Klein wrote: > >> On 13 Dec 2006 15:38:10 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> Less of an excuse for what? >> >>> For blatantly missing the obvious, that we live in a world created by >>> God. >> >> It's only "obvious" if you've already decided that it's true. That's >> called assuming your conclusion. > >No, it is called postulating the major premise. I won't get into your lack of knowledge of logic again, except to tell you that you're wrong - again. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire (1694 - 1778) (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 On 13 Dec 2006 22:15:26 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> Science doesn't provide evidence, it investigates observed evidence. >> And there's never been any evidence of any god. >> Are you beginning to see the common thread? >Sure, you've been brain washed into thinking that everything can be explained >through science So post evidence that I'm wrong. > and you risk your eternity on a belief system that has many gaps. Sorry, that threat only works on people who haven't died. Those of us who have know what lies on the other side of death. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "Speculating on the possible reaction to evidence is no excuse for failing to produce the evidence." - Wayne M. Delia+ (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Chris Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Al Klein wrote: > On 13 Dec 2006 21:11:18 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: > > >tereshka@gmail.com wrote: > > >> You seriously think science is going to uncover god? God is not a > >> testable hypothesis, hence it's not something science can "find". Also, > >> you're leaving out that the No-Boundary Proposal avoids some of the > >> problems with the hot big bang theory, making it in that sense better > >> than the big bang, and it eliminates any need for god for the existence > >> of the universe. I'm sure that's not really something you want to hear. > > >Actually he seems more open minded than the rest of you > > Hawking is an atheist, but he likes selling his books, and he knows > that claiming that there's no evidence of any god would kill sales. I don't think so... Here is an more honest evaluation of Hawkin's beliefs and seems balanced: And God Those who have not read A Brief History of Time may be surprised to find that the book has a main character. That main character is God. This was the feature of the book that the well known atheist Carl Sagan found a bit distressing. Sagan wrote the preface to the first edition of the book, but was less famous than Hawking by the time of arrival of the tenth anniversary edition, in which Sagan's preface does not appear. God is discussed in A Brief History of Time from near the beginning all the way to the crescendo of the final sentence. So let us try to put Hawking's opinions about God in some sort of a context. The context is that Stephen Hawking seems to have made up his mind about God long before he became a cosmologist. Not surprisingly, the principal influence in Stephen's early life was his mother, Isobel. Isobel Hawking was a member of the Communist Party in England in the 1930's, and her son has carried some of that intellectual tradition right through his life. Incidentally, Hawking's fame is now such that he felt obligated to endorse one of the candidates in the 2000 United States presidential election. By the time he was 13, Hawking's hero was the brilliant agnostic philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell. At the same age, two of Hawking's friends became Christians as a result of the 1955 Billy Graham London campaign. According to his 1992 biographers (Michael White and John Gribben), Hawking stood apart from these encounters with "a certain amused detachment." There is little in A Brief History of Time that deviates in a significant way from what we know of the religious views of the 13-year-old Stephen Hawking. However, we must note that in public questioning Hawking insists that he is not an atheist. And I am told by eyewitness observers that in recent years Stephen Hawking has appeared "once or twice a month" in an Anglican church with his second wife. Perhaps the most important event of Stephen Hawking's life occurred on December 31, 1962. He met his future wife of 25 years, Jane Wilde, at a New Year's Eve party. One month later, Hawking was diagnosed with a debilitating disease, ALS or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, known in North America as Lou Gehrig's disease. He was given two years to live at the time. That was nearly 40 years ago. I have seen three chemistry professor friends die of this terrible disease. My three friends lasted two, three, and five years, respectively, the last surviving on an iron lung for his last tortuous year. By anyone's estimation, the preservation of Stephen Hawking's life is a medical miracle. And he is a man of great personal courage. At this point in his life, 1962, Stephen was by all accounts an average-performing graduate student at Cambridge University. I hasten to add that even average doctoral students at Cambridge, still one of the five great universities in the world, can be very good. Let me quote from his biographers, White and Gribbon, on this point: However, there is little doubt that Jane Wilde's appearance on the scene was a major turning point in Stephen Hawking's life. The two of them began to see a lot more of one another and a strong relationship developed. It was finding Jane Wilde that enabled him to break out of his depression and regenerate some belief in his life and work. For Hawking, his engagement to Jane was probably the most important thing that ever happened to him. It changed his life, gave him something to live for and made him determined to live. Without the help that Jane gave him, he would almost certainly not have been able to carry on or had the will to do so. They married in July of 1965, somewhat past the expected date of Stephen Hawking's death. The fact that three children followed is indisputable evidence that Stephen was not dead. Hawking himself said in an interview shortly following the publication of A Brief History of Time that "what really made a difference was that I got engaged to a woman named Jane Wilde. This gave me something to live for." Jane Wilde is an interesting person in her own right. I think she decided early on to pursue an academic discipline as far as possible from her husband. She has a doctorate in Medieval Portuguese Literature! Jane Hawking is a Christian. She made the statement in 1986, "Without my faith in God, I wouldn't have been able to live in this situation (namely, the deteriorating health of her husband, with no obvious income but that of a Cambridge don to live on). I would not have been able to marry Stephen in the first place because I wouldn't have had the optimism to carry me through, and I wouldn't have been able to carry on with it." The reason the book has sold more than 10 million copies, i.e., the reason for Hawking's success as a popularizer of science, is that he addresses the problems of meaning and purpose that concern all thinking people. The book overlaps with Christian belief and it does so deliberately, but graciously and without rancor. It is an important book that needs to be treated with respect and attention. There is no reason to agree with everything put forth in A Brief History of Time and you will see that I have a couple of areas of disagreement. It has been argued that this is the most widely unread book in the history of literature. I first began to prepare this material for a lecture in December 1992, because I was asked by a friend (John Mason) in Australia to come and speak on the subject. John wrote to me, "A great many people in Sydney have purchased this book. Some claim to have read it." So I encourage you to join the students in my University of Georgia class and become one of those who have actually read A Brief History of Time. Stephen Hawking has made some eminently sensible statements on the relationship between science and Christianity. For example, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws." When asked by a reporter whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied cleverly "Then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity." Dr. Hawking is well aware that Newton had strong religious convictions. A Brief History of Time makes wonderfully ambiguous statements such as, "Even if there is only one possible unified theory (here he is alluding to the envisioned unification of our understandings of quantum mechanics and gravity), it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" In a similar vein Hawking asks "Why does the universe go to the bother of existing?" Although Hawking does not attempt to answer these two critical questions, they make wonderful discussion topics for university students, and I have enjoyed using them for this purpose. Hawking pokes fun at Albert Einstein for not believing in quantum mechanics. When asked why he didn't believe in quantum mechanics, Einstein would sometimes say things like "God doesn't play dice with the universe." On one such occasion, Niels Bohr is said to have responded "Albert, stop telling God what He can do." Hawking's adroit response to Einstein is that "God not only plays dice. He sometimes throws them where they can't be seen." Of course, I like Hawking's response very much, having devoted my professional career to the study of molecular quantum mechanics. For me (and for Hawking's now distinguished student Don Page; more on Professor Page later) the most precious jewel in A Brief History of Time reflects Hawking's interest in the writing's of Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.). Hawking states "The idea that God might want to change His mind is an example of the fallacy, pointed out St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, God knew what He intended when He set it up." The first time I read A Brief History of Time, admittedly not critically, for the first 100 pages or so I thought, "This is a great book; Hawking is building a splendid case for creation by an intelligent being." But things then begin to change and this magnificent cosmological epic becomes adulterated by poor philosophy and theology. For example, Hawking writes on page 122 of the first edition, "These laws (of physics) may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that He has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it". The grounds on which Hawking claims "it appears" are unstated, and a straw God is set up that is certainly not the God who is revealed in time and space and history. What follows is a curious mixture of deism and the ubiquitous "god of the gaps." Stephen Hawking thus appears uncertain (agnostic) of his belief in a god of his own creation. Now, lest any reader be uncertain, let me emphasize that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of atheism, he is affronted and says that such assertions are not true. For example, Hawking has stated "I thought I had left the question of the existence of a Supreme Being completely open. . . It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for all the laws of physics." Stephen Hawking is probably an agnostic or a deist (a believer in an impersonal god) or something in between these two positions, his recent church attendance notwithstanding. He is certainly not an atheist and sometimes does not even appear very sympathetic to atheism. One of the frequently quoted statements in A Brief History of Time is, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we would suppose it had a creator (the cosmological argument). But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" Hawking's most famous statement is contained in the last paragraph of A Brief History of Time. Perhaps attempting to balance the quotation just cited, Hawking writes "However, if we do discover a complete theory. . . . . then we would know the mind of God." As a person who has dedicated his professional life to science, I am personally sympathetic to this statement. John Calvin was correct is stating that "All truth is God's truth." But I think Professor Hawking is claiming too much here. I would modify his statement to say that if we had a unified, complete theory of physics, we would know much more about the mind of God. To claim to know God comprehensively is beyond the capability of any human being. (from http://www.origins.org/articles/schaefer_bigbangandgod.html) > (He said something to that effect once, but not in a public > interview.) But he does say, in the interview you quoted, "It says > nothing about whether or not God exists" - he doesn't address God in > his science. > > >And this... > > >...the universe has not existed for ever. Rather, THE UNIVERSE, AND > >TIME ITSELF, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years > >ago. The beginning of REAL TIME, would have been a singularity, at > >which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way > >the universe began, would have been determined by the laws of physics, > >if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in > >the imaginary time direction, spacetime is finite in extent, but > >doesn't have any boundary or edge. > > That last sentence means that in imaginary time (which is probably > more "real" than "real time") the universe has always existed - it has > no boundary condition, no beginning or end. > -- > rukbat at optonline dot net > I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican > friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we > will stop telling the truth about them. > - Adlai E. Stevenson > (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 On 14 Dec 2006 10:32:58 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Under the rules of logic, one is not allowed to question whether >> a postulate is true because, by definition, a postulate is accepted >> as true without proof. > >That is the lamest attempt at an argument I've seen in a long time. It's the equivalent of "I claim X, and I claim that claims can't be questioned because, by my claim, that's true. So you have to accept X". I guess the formal fallacy is "assuming the conclusion that assuming a conclusion is valid", or something equally recursive. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26 (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 On 14 Dec 2006 11:21:30 -0800, "Chris" <look2god@gmail.com> wrote: >By the time >he was 13, Hawking's hero was the brilliant agnostic philosopher and >mathematician, Bertrand Russell. Whoever wrote this (and you didn't attribute it) doesn't seem to know that agnostics can also be (and often are) atheists. Nothing in there, however, says that Hawking is a theist. -- rukbat at optonline dot net "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them." - Abraham Lincoln (random sig, produced by SigChanger) Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.