Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-04-2013, 12:04 AM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(20-04-2013 01:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(20-04-2013 01:11 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Bryan, the problem with multi verse theory is that it is not really science. It can't be tested or falsified. Regarding your claim that WMAP could see artifacts of colliding universes, that will be as credible evidence for a multiverse as picture of the Sydonian face on mars is credible evidence for extra terrestrial life. Any image we see in the WMAP which could be created by a collision with another universe could just as well be caused by random happenstance.

Our little rep is headed the wrong way, I see. Tongue

So you, with your no degree in nuthin, calling Dawkins wrong about his own field, and Hawking a old guy in a chair, can sit there and say that data seen in WMAP and ISIS, and wherever else, despite that fact that many PhD physicists say it WILL constitute evidence, is not evidence. I see. Well, I guess we should just all jettison reason, and believe you now should we ?

Not.

You just be happy in your play pen with your god of the gaps, and the adults will talk. Now be quiet BlowJob, and go take your bottle, and your nap. Mommy will be happy.

Weeping

PHD physicists will render opinions. Some will say what ever artifact they see( if they see any at all) in the WMAP survey was not likely the result of chance and that a collision occurred with another universe is a "real" possibility. The multi verse will forever just be a possibility. I don't blame you for having faith in it. If I were an atheist, I'd have faith in it too. The multi verse and God are really the only two reasonble explanations for the apparent fine tuning of the universe. Susskind even admitted that if the multi verse was ever shown untenable, physicist would be hard pressed to dismiss the God explanation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2013, 12:06 AM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(20-04-2013 01:36 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(20-04-2013 01:12 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Meh...it very well could be. But just calling it so doesn't make it so.

For you, maybe. But Imma prophet. Big Grin

It is philosophically unsatisfying. Beyond what Blome covered, every new discovery and observation seems to send the string heads back to their whiteboards to tweak their stringiness. Starting to seem like Goddidit from over here... Dodgy

Philosophically unsatisfying? Pshaw! What does that matter? Tell me something--what did the philosopher have to say about the quantum world? Ohh sure, Philosophy could get us as far as the atom, but that's about it. Philosophy is at the precipice of not really mattering in the discovery of the world we live in, the reason being that the world really does appear to be 'queerer than we can suppose'.

String theory has its problems, but theorizing a multiverse is its own idea not reliant on string theory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2013, 01:07 AM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(21-04-2013 12:06 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(20-04-2013 01:36 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  For you, maybe. But Imma prophet. Big Grin

It is philosophically unsatisfying. Beyond what Blome covered, every new discovery and observation seems to send the string heads back to their whiteboards to tweak their stringiness. Starting to seem like Goddidit from over here... Dodgy

Philosophically unsatisfying? Pshaw! What does that matter? Tell me something--what did the philosopher have to say about the quantum world? Ohh sure, Philosophy could get us as far as the atom, but that's about it. Philosophy is at the precipice of not really mattering in the discovery of the world we live in, the reason being that the world really does appear to be 'queerer than we can suppose'.

String theory has its problems, but theorizing a multiverse is its own idea not reliant on string theory.

If a multi verse exists then you still need a universe generator which in turn requires an explanation of its own. It isn't a complete explaination of existence so it is unsatisfying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2013, 01:19 AM (This post was last modified: 21-04-2013 05:37 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(21-04-2013 01:07 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(21-04-2013 12:06 AM)BryanS Wrote:  Philosophically unsatisfying? Pshaw! What does that matter? Tell me something--what did the philosopher have to say about the quantum world? Ohh sure, Philosophy could get us as far as the atom, but that's about it. Philosophy is at the precipice of not really mattering in the discovery of the world we live in, the reason being that the world really does appear to be 'queerer than we can suppose'.

String theory has its problems, but theorizing a multiverse is its own idea not reliant on string theory.

If a multi verse exists then you still need a universe generator which in turn requires an explanation of its own. It isn't a complete explaination of existence so it is unsatisfying.

100 % wrong. Uncertainty, Relativity, Dirac spinors prove that what is "satisfying" is not reality. What scientists *need* is EVIDENCE. What YOU need is meds, psychotherapy, and 100 % irrelevant. You didn't even read the articles. You don't "need" a universe "generator". What is "logical" to the humean brain at this level has been priven to NOT be the nature of reality. But thanks for continuing to prove that what your theism is all about is not a relationship with your god, but essentially a "god of the gaps" argument, because you NEED one. It always does come down to NEED. You NEED there to be a god. It's all about Pshychology. Not science. Not Theology. Just a weak mind.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-04-2013, 01:39 AM (This post was last modified: 21-04-2013 01:50 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(21-04-2013 01:19 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-04-2013 01:07 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If a multi verse exists then you still need a universe generator which in turn requires an explanation of its own. It isn't a complete explaination of existence so it is unsatisfying.

100 % wrong. Uncertainty, Relativity, Dirac spinors prove that what is "satisfying" is not reality. What scientists *need* is EVIDENCE. What YOU need is meds, psychotherapy, and 100 % irrelevant. You didn't even read the articles. You don't "nned" a universe "generator". What is "logical" to the humean brain at this level has been priven to NOT be the nature of reality. But thanks for continuing to prove that what your theism is all about is not a relationship with your god, but essentially a "god of the gaps" argument, because you NEED one. It always does come down to NEED. You NEED there to be a god. It's all about Pshychology. Not science. Not Theology. Just a weak mind.

The articles make no mention of a mutiverse. You have the reading comprehension skills of a first grader....actually your skills are worse than a first grader. A first grader might miss something, but he/she wouldn't just make shit up like you do. My comment was about the multi verse which Bryan introduced into this thread. It wasn't about Hawking's idea as outlined in the articles.

Put your dunce hat back on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2013, 12:15 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(19-04-2013 10:05 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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.
Which would be why the second part of my post stated "And a sudden rush of new accounts all ignoring the same person would be a huge red flag regardless."

Humanists of West Florida
GC CoR
P'cola Skeptic in thePub
GC Freethinker
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2013, 12:16 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(19-04-2013 10:05 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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.
Which would be why the second part of my post stated "And a sudden rush of new accounts all ignoring the same person would be a huge red flag regardless."

Humanists of West Florida
GC CoR
P'cola Skeptic in thePub
GC Freethinker
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2013, 01:58 PM
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(19-04-2013 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-04-2013 03:08 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Awesome stuff. I love that Hawking guy.

Side note, I wish you people would stop quoting that BlowJob idiot - not much point having him on ignore if I read all his crap when everyone quote him.

Maybe 'ignore' would be more useful if a sufficient number automatically triggered a ban.
You know, if 10 users put you on 'ignore', you cease to exist. Thumbsup

There'd be nobody left within a week, trolls would register to mass ignore ppl.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2013, 04:54 PM
Re: RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(21-04-2013 01:07 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(21-04-2013 12:06 AM)BryanS Wrote:  Philosophically unsatisfying? Pshaw! What does that matter? Tell me something--what did the philosopher have to say about the quantum world? Ohh sure, Philosophy could get us as far as the atom, but that's about it. Philosophy is at the precipice of not really mattering in the discovery of the world we live in, the reason being that the world really does appear to be 'queerer than we can suppose'.

String theory has its problems, but theorizing a multiverse is its own idea not reliant on string theory.

If a multi verse exists then you still need a universe generator which in turn requires an explanation of its own. It isn't a complete explaination of existence so it is unsatisfying.

unsatisfying to individuals who are so warped up in thinking there must be known answers in the world to make oneself feel secure it intelligent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2013, 05:40 PM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2013 12:32 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Stephen Hawking ... no god(s) needed
(21-04-2013 01:39 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(21-04-2013 01:19 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  100 % wrong. Uncertainty, Relativity, Dirac spinors prove that what is "satisfying" is not reality. What scientists *need* is EVIDENCE. What YOU need is meds, psychotherapy, and 100 % irrelevant. You didn't even read the articles. You don't "nned" a universe "generator". What is "logical" to the humean brain at this level has been priven to NOT be the nature of reality. But thanks for continuing to prove that what your theism is all about is not a relationship with your god, but essentially a "god of the gaps" argument, because you NEED one. It always does come down to NEED. You NEED there to be a god. It's all about Pshychology. Not science. Not Theology. Just a weak mind.

The articles make no mention of a mutiverse. You have the reading comprehension skills of a first grader....actually your skills are worse than a first grader. A first grader might miss something, but he/she wouldn't just make shit up like you do. My comment was about the multi verse which Bryan introduced into this thread. It wasn't about Hawking's idea as outlined in the articles.

Put your dunce hat back on.

I didn't say the articles talked about a mutiverse. I was replying to YOUR nonsense of a "universe generator," the objection to which you just tried to evade by going off about something else. Nice try at deflection. Answer/explain the "universe generator" question, and where you got your evidence for it. The fact that it seems logical to you, is not evidence.

BTW, "universe generation" assumes that the nature of Reality outside, (or apart) from this universe is the same as it is IN this universe. You have no reason to assume that.
Causality may not exist elsewhere. Cause and affect may only be the a sequence here. "Generation" assumes Causality. You have no evidence that exists elsewhere, if it even makes sense to say "elsewhere", as THAT assumes spacetime apart from this universe. You have no evidence for that either. Generation also requires time.... first the intent to create/generate, and then following, the act of generation. Another thing you can't assume.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: