Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-04-2013, 09:50 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(19-04-2013 03:35 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-04-2013 03:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  If you don't like it here, go elsewhere. Dodgy

Circle jerking on an atheist site is expected. This site really isn't horribly bad in that respect. I still don't like it, but it is tolerable.

Yet you hang around?

Troll much...

You know that all you're doing is wasting your time.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2013, 10:05 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(19-04-2013 09:28 PM)KeenIdiot Wrote:  I dunno about this forum, but on others I've seen accounts be flagged for having the same IP address or posting habits. And a sudden rush of new accounts all ignoring the same person would be a huge red flag regardless.

Changing IP addressess or using proxy servers is simple.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2013, 10:08 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(19-04-2013 09:50 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(19-04-2013 03:35 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Circle jerking on an atheist site is expected. This site really isn't horribly bad in that respect. I still don't like it, but it is tolerable.

Yet you hang around?

Troll much...

You know that all you're doing is wasting your time.

My time could be more wisely spent doing other thing, but I don't think I am wasting it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2013, 10:24 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
Why not? You're not converting anyone or making a good argument for the existence of God..
And if you find this place tedious then you're obviously not here for the people.
So, why are you here and why do you think your time is not wasted when clearly it is?

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2013, 10:56 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(19-04-2013 09:31 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(19-04-2013 09:14 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I understand the rules Clyde, but just because there is a rule against sock puppets, doesn't mean people don't get away with making them.

Yes but it's you speaking of an improbable and impractical occurrence based on slight probability.

It's not under the radar to note 10 accounts springing up making the 30 posts or whatever it is to rep and all negging one person. You make it tough to distinguish if you are being serious or gravitate to probability if it fits your point.

Your probably right. What Chas proposed would work perfectly without any unintended consequences.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2013, 10:57 PM (This post was last modified: 20-04-2013 12:46 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(19-04-2013 10:24 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Why not? You're not converting anyone or making a good argument for the existence of God..
And if you find this place tedious then you're obviously not here for the people.
So, why are you here and why do you think your time is not wasted when clearly it is?

I find some people tedious but not all....and I am looking for black swans.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2013, 11:13 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
There's a dude from MIT coming to give a lecture about his new multiverse theory here in hicktown, merica. This shit just doesn't happen here, and it's not even affiliated with the college so far as I'm aware.

I'm pumped, I'm a first rate noob at this science shit, but I find it absolutely fascinating.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
20-04-2013, 08:59 AM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(19-04-2013 11:13 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  There's a dude from MIT coming to give a lecture about his new multiverse theory here in hicktown, merica. This shit just doesn't happen here, and it's not even affiliated with the college so far as I'm aware.

I'm pumped, I'm a first rate noob at this science shit, but I find it absolutely fascinating.

Hawking lays out in an accessible way his justifications for M-theory and the multiverse in his book The Grand Design . If you're interested in the topic, that might not be a bad read in addition to the lecture.


(19-04-2013 12:37 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  Where's the evidence?
(19-04-2013 02:00 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You think the universe spontaneously arose because some old guy in a wheel chair said it might have happened that way?

To those who think the multiverse is unjustified BS, try actually reading and learning instead of speculating. The multiverse idea is definitely at the cutting edge of science, meaning much more research needs to be done to increase confidence among scientists in the idea.

The idea is based on observations that suggest multiple histories at the quantum scale (the double slit experiment for example). Just like the double slit experiment inspired quantum mechanics by bolstering the idea that matter can behave like waves (the Schreodinger equation is a 'wave equation'), this idea of multiple histories in the double slit experiment suggest that when the universe was a singularity at the scale of quantum mechanics, multiple universes were potential at that point and we are observing but one of the results of a combination of possibilities.

So the multiverse, if a true idea, would be an elegant way of explaining how our universe came to be, would be consistent with existing physics, and true to Occam's Razor in that in includes no additional (and unnecessary) assumptions. Just like quantum mechanics is consistent with macroscopic scale when we use the equations to calculate macroscopic qualities, and just like the equations for relativity are consistent with Newtonian mechanics at slower speeds, the multiverse is consistent with the universe we live in today. These characteristics are the hallmark of all successful scientific theories.

The multiverse idea is fairly new in Physics, so we need more evidence to support it. We have but only one universe to observe, so it is difficult, though not impossible (WMAP experiments looking for evidence of interactions with remnant universes) to find supporting physical evidence. The evidence for multiple histories are all around us in modern physics--we just need the evidence that our universe is one example of this.

And that represents a problem for theists who have gone from denying the big bang to embracing it as evidence for god (because the universe has a beginning). If the universe really did bang out of singularity, than the multiverse theory is true if we can find evidence that this quantum thing (the universe at singularity) behaves like every other quantum thing we know about. Notice I'm not saying the multiverse theory is definitely true, just that there is good reason to search for the evidence to support it.

And what if we find the evidence we are looking for? Problem for the theists--it means the universe and all its 'creation' are not something special requiring an outside influence to create. As Hawking rightly notes, this theory requires no gods. If even the physical properties are 'selected' through this quantum history selecting only the ones that work, then god even has no role for the physical constants and properties of the universe. The god of the gaps, then would have a virtually non-existent gap to occupy .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BryanS's post
20-04-2013, 11:24 AM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(19-04-2013 10:57 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-04-2013 10:24 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Why not? You're not converting anyone or making a good argument for the existence of God..
And if you find this place tedious then you're obviously not here for the people.
So, why are you here and why do you think your time is not wasted when clearly it is?

I find some people tedious but not all....and I am looking for black swans.

Those birds are evil. EVIL!!!!!!! seriously, long story.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2013, 12:36 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(19-04-2013 12:37 PM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  Where's the evidence?

sarcasm detectors are not working.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: