You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 04:39:12 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe  (Read 12919 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chevalier des PoissonsTopic starter

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #50 on: September 04, 2010, 04:22:14 PM »
That's not a problem with deduction, the problem is that you're not using formal language.  If you want to apply propositional calculus (i.e. logic) you have to use a formal language.  Rigor to the point of a first order language isn't necessary, but use pure english language in the example you gave isn't valid deductive logic.

That does not change one single bit of what I said. You know, attacking the way I said it is a poor counter-argument.

Quote
By the way, induction is argument from probability.

Based on what you are saying that? Because that just reduces the whole concept of logic to induction.

Quote
EDIT:  Not to mention the example you gave simply is just factually wrong.  Cream crackers have different ingredients than the sea and undergo a different preparation process... I'm not really sure what the point you're trying to make is with such a poor example.

Fine, another example:

Love is blind.
God is love.
Stevie Wonder is blind.
Steview Wonder is god.


I am trying to show that Occam's Razor, in it's -actual- meaning, is not and never was an induction, therefore there is no reason to invalidate it.

Offline Chevalier des PoissonsTopic starter

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #51 on: September 04, 2010, 04:37:11 PM »
Double posting. Ban Chevalier.

Im not sure if I understand your point. Doesnt science in "creation" theories force people to stop using logic and just believe the theory as well?

Actually, science works with probabilities and, in the case of Philosophy, with most probable arguments, that would be confirmed or denied. That's why medicine keeps saying and unsaying things all the time.

Quote
Even when I was in my agnostic youth I always felt the big bang theory had to many holes in it to even be considered a theory by scientific standards. As I mentioned before, from my point of view, it is not a creation theory but an evolution theory. As the former I feel its a ludicrous idea with no merit as the theory talks about the current form of the universe we know being created and relies on a past universe we know nothing about and just have to "believe in". The theory does not address the true creation of the universe where the first thing came into exsistance. As the latter it functions well as a hypothosis and may have some merit as an actual theory if testing could be done (I fail to see how it could be though).

In science, for something to become a theory, all it has to do is to give a logical explanation for part of what it states.

Quote
That said, science has to my knowlege failed to explain a massive explosion like the big bang can create something as remarkable as the human mind, let alone basic things like planets or stars. . Still scientists tell people that they have to believe in it. To be a little cynical, its like religions of the past. Men in white robes wandered the lands talking about God and told people to believe because of this or that reason. Now we have men and women in white coats doing the same thing. Thats likely oversimplifying it but as I said thats if you want to be cynical

But, as I said before: The lack of proof for something doesn't mean that thing is not true. Therefore there is no reason as to why the Big Bang Theory would not be valid.

Offline Jude

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #52 on: September 04, 2010, 04:44:39 PM »
That does not change one single bit of what I said. You know, attacking the way I said it is a poor counter-argument.

Based on what you are saying that? Because that just reduces the whole concept of logic to induction.

Fine, another example:

Love is blind.
God is love.
Stevie Wonder is blind.
Steview Wonder is god.


I am trying to show that Occam's Razor, in it's -actual- meaning, is not and never was an induction, therefore there is no reason to invalidate it.
That's... not accurate.  God is not love, even if you believe in god it's a much more complicated entity than that.  You're using simplistic definitions that are not definitions.  You are not properly applying logic, your premises are false.

By the way, formal language is not the way something is said.  Formal language requires a degree of rigor and precision, it's a technical term within the realm of logic.  A first order language is the most formal language possible, but there are other passable levels of formal language where deduction works.  I really think you should study logic before you criticize it, because it doesn't seem like you're aware of how propositional calculus is supposed to work.

EDIT:  To be more precise, what makes your statements not in a formal language and thus not a valid argument is that you're using words which mean multiple things (and in formal statements all words and predicates must mean one thing and one thing only) and you're using false premises.  If you want to translate it to something closer to formality it would be:

Love is blind = Love has the property of causing blindness.
God is love = God has the property of causing love.
Stevie Wonder is blind = Stevie Wonder has the property of blindness.

Clearly the premises, in more formal language, do not lead to your flawed conclusion.  You can't even make the argument that Stevie Wonder has experienced love because you have only established a uni-directional relationship; love may cause blindness but not all blindness is the result of love, it's not a bi-directional.  Granted, it's not perfectly rigid or accurate because love does not literally cause blindness, but it's closer.  Misapplication of argument can prove all sorts of things, but that's not a fault of the logic itself, just the person applying the poor argument.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2010, 04:56:01 PM by Jude »

Offline Will

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #53 on: September 04, 2010, 04:47:22 PM »
That's... not accurate.  God is not love, even if you believe in god it's a much more complicated entity than that.  You're using simplistic definitions that are not definitions.  You are not properly applying logic, your premises are false.

Not to mention the fact that "Love is blind" and "Stevie Wonder is blind" are not even close to the same meaning. :P

Offline Chevalier des PoissonsTopic starter

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #54 on: September 04, 2010, 05:22:21 PM »
That's... not accurate.  God is not love, even if you believe in god it's a much more complicated entity than that.  You're using simplistic definitions that are not definitions.  You are not properly applying logic, your premises are false.

That is a MOCKERY logic.

Also, I am using the simplest definitions to apply premises. Why is it complicated? I am  using the simplest definition of the words, just that :) It's easy to say that my premises are false, but I'd like you to give me actual arguments as to why, instead of just saying that my premises are wrong and that's it.

Quote
By the way, formal language is not the way something is said.  Formal language requires a degree of rigor and precision, it's a technical term within the realm of logic.  A first order language is the most formal language possible, but there are other passable levels of formal language where deduction works.  I really think you should study logic before you criticize it, because it doesn't seem like you're aware of how propositional calculus is supposed to work.

LOL if only you knew.

I find it very interesting how you just invalidate all my study just because I made a mistake in the definition when I posted my answer.

So far now you are not giving me counter arguments, you are just pointing and telling my arguments are wrong. I will study logic, and you will study basic debate, alright?

[qupte]EDIT:  To be more precise, what makes your statements not in a formal language and thus not a valid argument is that you're using words which mean multiple things (and in formal statements all words and predicates must mean one thing and one thing only) and you're using false premises.  If you want to translate it to something closer to formality it would be:

Love is blind = Love has the property of causing blindness.
God is love = God has the property of causing love.
Stevie Wonder is blind = Stevie Wonder has the property of blindness.

Clearly the premises, in more formal language, do not lead to your flawed conclusion.  You can't even make the argument that Stevie Wonder has experienced love because you have only established a uni-directional relationship; love may cause blindness but not all blindness is the result of love, it's not a bi-directional.  Granted, it's not perfectly rigid or accurate because love does not literally cause blindness, but it's closer.  Misapplication of argument can prove all sorts of things, but that's not a fault of the logic itself, just the person applying the poor argument.
[/quote]

What you said is incomplete. Summing up:

Love is blind = Love has the property of causing blindness.
God is love = God has the property of causing love.
Stevie Wonder is blind = Stevie Wonder has the property of blindness.

Based on what -you- just said, we can assume that the property of blindness on Stevie Wonder was caused by love, after all, there are no signs of the opposite and, since the lack of proof doesn't invalidate an argument, then there is no reason as to why his blindness wouldn't be caused by the love itself.

-

Now do yo usee my point? Words with multiple significations can lead to multiple conclusions, all of them looking valid, based on any seemengly valid bases can lead to any seemingly valid conclusions, even if they are invalid. And that does -not- depend of the Occam's Razor, you see?

Offline Jude

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #55 on: September 04, 2010, 05:33:28 PM »
Based on what -you- just said, we can assume that the property of blindness on Stevie Wonder was caused by love, after all, there are no signs of the opposite and, since the lack of proof doesn't invalidate an argument, then there is no reason as to why his blindness wouldn't be caused by the love itself.
I'm sorry, but that's not how logic works.  You can't assume that because a causes b, if you see an instance of b then it was caused by a.  That's assuming bidirectional causation when you only have unidirectional.  I give up, you don't seem to understand formal logic at all.

Offline Chevalier des PoissonsTopic starter

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #56 on: September 04, 2010, 05:51:49 PM »
I'm sorry, but that's not how logic works.  You can't assume that because a causes b, if you see an instance of b then it was caused by a.  That's assuming bidirectional causation when you only have unidirectional.  I give up, you don't seem to understand formal logic at all.

::) I don't understand.

Yet, you missed my point.

Offline Jude

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #57 on: September 04, 2010, 05:53:13 PM »
Language barrier maybe?  I dunno, agree to disagree.  It was nice discussing this with you.  Thanks for the talk.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #58 on: September 04, 2010, 05:55:22 PM »
Im not sure if I understand your point. Doesnt science in "creation" theories force people to stop using logic and just believe the theory as well? Even when I was in my agnostic youth I always felt the big bang theory had to many holes in it to even be considered a theory by scientific standards. As I mentioned before, from my point of view, it is not a creation theory but an evolution theory. As the former I feel its a ludicrous idea with no merit as the theory talks about the current form of the universe we know being created and relies on a past universe we know nothing about and just have to "believe in". The theory does not address the true creation of the universe where the first thing came into exsistance. As the latter it functions well as a hypothosis and may have some merit as an actual theory if testing could be done (I fail to see how it could be though).

The Big Bang is a theory that attempts to describe the events that occurred after the singularity. It doesn't describe how that singularity came to be. For a long time it was thought that we couldn't even attempt to.

Quote
That said, science has to my knowlege failed to explain a massive explosion like the big bang can create something as remarkable as the human mind, let alone basic things like planets or stars.

Theories of galaxy and star system formation are pretty well rounded. The math is painful and immense.

Your statement seems to imply that because everything is not perfectly understood, no further understanding whatsoever can be gained (considering how far theories of mind have developed).

That is false.

Quote
Still scientists tell people that they have to believe in it. To be a little cynical, its like religions of the past. Men in white robes wandered the lands talking about God and told people to believe because of this or that reason. Now we have men and women in white coats doing the same thing. Thats likely oversimplifying it but as I said thats if you want to be cynical

Here's the difference between science and religion.

I can describe for you, how to create a battery, force some wires, blow glass, empty it, and create a light bulb.

I can describe for you, how to lay out electrical circuits, how they are powered, what sorts of things you need to watch out for and how to create a reasonably efficient machine.

I can describe for you, how to efficiently irrigate, plant, and harvest a crop.

There's nothing faith based about it. Except that if you trust your observations, you will get results.

We could go out, build a big enough telescope, work out how doppler shifts work, what standard candles are and why, and then start mapping galaxies and their recession rates from each other. There's nothing that special about it - it's all observation and deduction. You can deny what we see, if that suits you, but that doesn't really help your case for persuading others.

Quote
@Veksied: Ok I misunderstood you before, I thought you were trying to place god into a strictly external or internal being when compared with the universe. To answer your question, the idea that I think works best when mixed with mythology and metaphysical thinking/themes is that god is not effected by entropy or perhaps is highly resistant to it. To try and give an example, think about magnistim and how steel is magnetic but gold is not. So I would think he is made up of a different "material" then we are, or at least when we are in our physical forms (read: Alive).

Be careful about just tossing traits at God.

Picture a base logic gate. An AND gate takes two inputs, and if they are both true, returns true. Otherwise, it returns false. Okay.

Information cannot be destroyed. It has to go somewhere. All we know, from the result, is whether or not both were true. What happened to the information?

Inside your computer, it turns to heat.

Just declaring God to be immune to entropy risks also declaring that God cannot make a decision or an observation.

Quote
Another explanation that comes to my mind, again Im mixing theoretical sciences and mythology here, is the idea of perhaps he is able to bleed off some amount of entropy into another realm of existance (hell perhaps?). Or in a similar idea, perhaps the entropy takes the form of "evil" souls because its currently in a weakened state which keeps the univrse alive. At the same time, that energy probably couldnt be continuially built up in hell (as per the laws of thermodynamics) so  entropy also needs to bleed back into our world and creates more evil souls and the decay of time. The entire idea perpetuates a cycle similar to life. Yet another idea, also using the bleeding hypothosis, is that perhaps entropy (as an energy or force)is slowly used up as time continues

Any closed circuit that such a God forms with the Universe is something that we affect and thus could potentially take advantage of ourselves.

Entropy isn't good or evil, per se. But if you somehow manage to destroy it without recovering the information it represented, you are basically erasing a part of the past.

Picture a sponge in a still pool of water. Imagine it's a sentient sponge, and wants to get to the other side. The energy of the liquid water around it is plenty enough to make this easy - except that it is all (for the Sponge's purposes) effectively entropy - countless tiny molecules bouncing off of it in random directions, impossible to harness. They aren't evil, they aren't good, they simply are neither directed nor directable by the sponge.

Quote
Now in my mind science is a tool for mankind to understand how god made the universe work. I mean come on, objectivly, a being with enough experience, foresight, and power as God would create a living breathing world with laws so he wouldnt have to micromanage everything. The problem I see in this and other threads is people all to often take an anti-theist point of view as the atheists try as hard as they can to disprove anything even remotely religious. From my point of view elliquiy has a lot of scientific zealots (this is not the same as anti-theists) while the religious side who seems smaller (or at least has a smaller group who discusses things in P&R) is acctually pretty open to discussion of all types as long as things remain respectful. However I think scientific zealots and anti-theists have made that impossible over the last...probably year, maybe longer

Observe -> Hypothesize -> Test -> Repeat

I've mentioned before, that science cannot answer questions of goals or purpose. Science can tell you the most efficient means to get to a goal, science can help you find ways to avoid violating things that you consider to be unethical or immoral. Science can tell you the consequences of your actions, science can tell you through what processes a physical thing came to be.

Science cannot, and does not, tell you when or why to use a weapon. It can tell you what the results of action and inaction will be, but it is not there to make that decision for you. If your religion is your moral framework first and foremost, you won't have many problems, at least as far as science is concerned.

If, however, you are going to declare that the scientific method can't explain something, you are probably going to get back a rather incredulous response, from "So?" to "Yes, here.". It's what science does, science does a good job of it, and it's had the benefit of millions of people working in tandem for over a century. What there is to learn is immensely humbling, and I find what is being uncovered now to be incredibly exciting, personally.

Offline Brandon

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #59 on: September 04, 2010, 08:47:42 PM »
You're calling the entire scope of religion and science's purpose into a thread where they're discussing the validity of Stephen Hawking's statement. You're attacking people's beliefs for what you percieve to be an attack on your beliefs, personally. Disproving religion =/= antagonising it. If I wanted to antagonize a religion I'd be mentioning crusades and pedophiles.

Blame hemingway for that. I started out discussing just the sceintific theory as it was and my veiws on it as a sceintific theory. He was the one who had to throw god into the picture and spark this other debate.

Anyway, if Im attacking anyone its the anti-theists (and to a lesser extent sceintific zealots) that use sceince to antagonize the religious. If the regular atheists get caught up in that, then Im sorry but our beliefs run counter to one another so they probably should have expected to be offended anytime I write about God or the supernatural. A long time ago I said that if you know something is going to offend you then you should censor yourself by staying out of the discussion, I think thats still good advice. In fact its why I dont comment on "pedophile priests" anymore

Heres another problem I see from you. Youre using religion purely in christian contexts, Im not. When I say religion Im using it in all its forms from pure belief to philosophy. In this way, I dont limit myself to one set of beliefs or examples.

They are theories, all of it. You left out the part where I said nobody knows who is right yet.

Duh. The only people who know the truth are people who have died. I felt that was self explanitory so I didnt feel a need to comment on it

And if religion is the only source of morality then I'm quite possibly the most amoral bastard child on the planet.

Culture and philosophy are sources of morality. Religion is certainly both of those things but science can not be because science is a tool of humanity, nothing more. Its only when humans try to apply things such as ethics or form social groups and then cultures that science takes on the illusion of morality or culture.

The Big Bang is a theory that attempts to describe the events that occurred after the singularity. It doesn't describe how that singularity came to be. For a long time it was thought that we couldn't even attempt to.

Exactly. The big bang theory is an evolution of the universe theory, not a creation theory. If it was called a creation theory as in creation of the universe we know right now then Ild be fine with it but people nver make that distinction (or at least Ive never heard it).

Theories of galaxy and star system formation are pretty well rounded. The math is painful and immense.

Your statement seems to imply that because everything is not perfectly understood, no further understanding whatsoever can be gained (considering how far theories of mind have developed).

That is false.

Not at all, in science there is room for the answers "I dont know" or "I need more data". To me they are also honest answers and acceptable in hypothosis. However they have no place in scientific fact. As I understand it (and I may be a little rusty with the scientific process) experimentation and tests have to be done before something can be called a theory. So "I dont know" and "I need more data" shouldnt be included in theory either but thats what the big bang is, its a theory thats widely accepted by the sceintific community and to my knowlege has little to no data to back it up. Yet people are told to just believe in it

Here's the difference between science and religion.

I can describe for you, how to create a battery, force some wires, blow glass, empty it, and create a light bulb.

I can describe for you, how to lay out electrical circuits, how they are powered, what sorts of things you need to watch out for and how to create a reasonably efficient machine.

I can describe for you, how to efficiently irrigate, plant, and harvest a crop.

There's nothing faith based about it. Except that if you trust your observations, you will get results.

We could go out, build a big enough telescope, work out how doppler shifts work, what standard candles are and why, and then start mapping galaxies and their recession rates from each other. There's nothing that special about it - it's all observation and deduction. You can deny what we see, if that suits you, but that doesn't really help your case for persuading others.

Problem is, none of that is science. Its human ingenuity applied through what science has figured out.

I could say the same thing to you. You can deny what you see, if it suits you, but that doesnt help persuade others. When it comes to beliefs people should hold both science and religion to the highest of standards, they should ask all the questions they can think of and refuse to accept anything till the individual is satisfied with a logical answer.

That said, for me, science has failed to answer many of my questions regarding the big bang theory. It just doesnt make sense right now, so I refuse to accept it

Be careful about just tossing traits at God.

Picture a base logic gate. An AND gate takes two inputs, and if they are both true, returns true. Otherwise, it returns false. Okay.

Information cannot be destroyed. It has to go somewhere. All we know, from the result, is whether or not both were true. What happened to the information?

Inside your computer, it turns to heat.

Just declaring God to be immune to entropy risks also declaring that God cannot make a decision or an observation.

Any closed circuit that such a God forms with the Universe is something that we affect and thus could potentially take advantage of ourselves.

Entropy isn't good or evil, per se. But if you somehow manage to destroy it without recovering the information it represented, you are basically erasing a part of the past.

Im not sure I understand you here. Applying metaphysical themes and concepts is fine and all but that doesnt make much sense in that context. Information is a concept, entropy is a an energy or force. A concept can manipulate an energy or force (like how time manipulates things with entropy) but an energy or force doesnt have power over a concept.

At the end of the day, everything I said is purely conjecture. Although using metaphysics and combining them with scientific theories is kind of fun as an intellectual and creative process


Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #60 on: September 04, 2010, 09:00:50 PM »
it is a nice mental exercise as long as it doesn't degenrate into the old "your an idiot" "no you're an idiot" stuff...
I get tired of that

Offline Serephino

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #61 on: September 04, 2010, 09:45:53 PM »
I agree with Brandon here.  It seems like words are being put in our mouths.  I used the term 'scientific types' only to describe a group of people who view things differently than I do.  Absolutely no offense was meant.  And yet, I've been called anti-intellectual, and have been accused of being narrow minded and apparently have dangerous views.  It doesn't seem to matter what I say, I've been pre-judged, and everything will be twisted to fit into that mold.  A scientific minded person being skeptical of religion is just fine.  A religious minded person being skeptical of something scientific in nature is blasphemy on this forum.     

I never once said the scientific process was bad.  I'm just skeptical of some things, like the Big Bang Theory.  Why is it only another scientist can be skeptical of a theory or hypothesis without being narrow minded?  Like I said, the first rule of Chemistry is matter can neither be created or destroyed.  Energy can change the forms of matter, but I've never heard of it doing anything else. 

Fire is a good example I think.  It's a process in witch particles are torn apart.  The energy required for this generates a lot of heat, which makes the heated particles rise because they are moving faster than the surrounding particles of the atmosphere.  The atoms in the object being burned are not destroyed.  They are just transformed into something else that we call smoke.  It was transformed, but the matter was always there.   

I won't deny that Creation isn't the only possible explanation, but it's the one that makes the most sense to me at the moment.  Maybe one day I'll come across a theory that will make sense to me.  I'll always believe in God because that's just who I am.  However, that doesn't mean I don't think that possibly one day we'll figure out how it was all done.  Almost anything is possible.       

Offline Jude

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #62 on: September 04, 2010, 10:03:02 PM »
I agree with Brandon here.  It seems like words are being put in our mouths.  I used the term 'scientific types' only to describe a group of people who view things differently than I do.  Absolutely no offense was meant.  And yet, I've been called anti-intellectual, and have been accused of being narrow minded and apparently have dangerous views.  It doesn't seem to matter what I say, I've been pre-judged, and everything will be twisted to fit into that mold.  A scientific minded person being skeptical of religion is just fine.  A religious minded person being skeptical of something scientific in nature is blasphemy on this forum.     

I never once said the scientific process was bad.  I'm just skeptical of some things, like the Big Bang Theory.  Why is it only another scientist can be skeptical of a theory or hypothesis without being narrow minded?  Like I said, the first rule of Chemistry is matter can neither be created or destroyed.  Energy can change the forms of matter, but I've never heard of it doing anything else. 

Fire is a good example I think.  It's a process in witch particles are torn apart.  The energy required for this generates a lot of heat, which makes the heated particles rise because they are moving faster than the surrounding particles of the atmosphere.  The atoms in the object being burned are not destroyed.  They are just transformed into something else that we call smoke.  It was transformed, but the matter was always there.   

I won't deny that Creation isn't the only possible explanation, but it's the one that makes the most sense to me at the moment.  Maybe one day I'll come across a theory that will make sense to me.  I'll always believe in God because that's just who I am.  However, that doesn't mean I don't think that possibly one day we'll figure out how it was all done.  Almost anything is possible.       

The reason why people object to your skepticism is because your science is wrong.  Nearly everything you described above is incorrect.  Matter-energy equivalency is a fundamental part of modern physics and a rather well known equation:  e=mc^2.  It doesn't seem rational, to me anyway, to weigh in on the side of skepticism when the theory in question is not one that you understand.  Being innately skeptical towards an idea that you do not understand simply is a display of prejudice based on your religious beliefs.  That's why you face such static when you say such things.

If you disagree with a concept on the basis of personal religious principle, that's fine, just say so.  Don't try and pretend like you understand the scientific underpinnings of the issue and that's why you're rejecting it.  It's disingenuous.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 03:03:41 AM by Jude »

Offline Lyell

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #63 on: September 04, 2010, 10:45:56 PM »
It seems like words are being put in our mouths.


See:

Now in my mind science is a tool for mankind to understand how god made the universe work.

Also,

The problem I see in this and other threads is people all to often take an anti-theist point of view as the atheists try as hard as they can to disprove anything even remotely religious. From my point of view elliquiy has a lot of scientific zealots (this is not the same as anti-theists) while the religious side who seems smaller (or at least has a smaller group who discusses things in P&R) is acctually pretty open to discussion of all types as long as things remain respectful. However I think scientific zealots and anti-theists have made that impossible over the last...probably year, maybe longer

Very much gives the impression that, as far as Brandon is concerned, anyone not giving credit to God is wrong and incapable of having a respectful debate over the matter. The very notion that God is either not a part of the equation or not a part of the universe we live in disqualifies it as a valid argument.

Or maybe I'm just reading too deeply into the statements.

Offline Brandon

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #64 on: September 04, 2010, 10:54:39 PM »
Very much gives the impression that, as far as Brandon is concerned, anyone not giving credit to God is wrong and incapable of having a respectful debate over the matter. The very notion that God is either not a part of the equation or not a part of the universe we live in disqualifies it as a valid argument.

If you keep putting words in my mouth Im going to get very pissed off. Im asking you nicely to stop it.

Offline Chevalier des PoissonsTopic starter

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #65 on: September 04, 2010, 10:59:05 PM »
Alright, while I agree with Lyell, regardless of what Brandon means, I will askely ask you to stop the animosity before I close this thread, alright?

Some people accept other opinions, some people don't. Live with that.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #66 on: September 04, 2010, 11:31:56 PM »
Lyell, most people tend to wrap the statements made by others into their own contexts and don't always intend what they seem to. This goes for everyone. If you want to have a civil debate, you need to make the effort to take perceived slights and either address them or deconstruct them, as needed. Escalating the situation rarely helps.

To be more specific, ask for examples. If they refuse, call them out for it then, but not before you give them the opportunity to at least present their grievance. It might not be addressable, but at least it's known, then.

Exactly. The big bang theory is an evolution of the universe theory, not a creation theory. If it was called a creation theory as in creation of the universe we know right now then Ild be fine with it but people nver make that distinction (or at least Ive never heard it).

The thing about it is, to a degree, it's not very helpful to speculate on, at least not with our current understanding. Hawking's no-boundary proposal is one possibility, but it's not particularly useful, compared to the potential new physics we can unlock by studying the early conditions of the Universe. For it to be useful we would have to seriously consider creating singularities like it - somewhat on the far fetched side, at this point (and by far fetched I'm stating that in a scenario where building a device bigger than our Solar System to harness half the power of our Sun for experiments is 'reasonable').

So when you talk about the creation and evolution of the Universe, you'll find people who will focus on what we know, and that involves the Big Bang.

Quote
Not at all, in science there is room for the answers "I dont know" or "I need more data". To me they are also honest answers and acceptable in hypothosis. However they have no place in scientific fact. As I understand it (and I may be a little rusty with the scientific process) experimentation and tests have to be done before something can be called a theory. So "I dont know" and "I need more data" shouldnt be included in theory either but thats what the big bang is, its a theory thats widely accepted by the sceintific community and to my knowlege has little to no data to back it up. Yet people are told to just believe in it

There is no such thing as 'just believe it' in a genuine scientific theory. Either take the time to study the evidence, or don't, but the Big Bang is a genuine scientific theory, with a great deal of data to back it up.

I've even mentioned some of the easiest bits of data for you to look up, yourself - the Universe's inflation and the Cosmic Microwave Background. You can from that data either accept it, or study why we know all of the galaxies are receding from all other galaxies, etc. and so on. You can spend your whole life studying that, if you so wish - and guess what? Some people do.

Quote
Problem is, none of that is science. Its human ingenuity applied through what science has figured out.

It is all science. Just because you are guided through the process does not make it any less so. We call this 'instruction'. Nothing haughty about it, but the idea is that, eventually, we reach a point where we have been taught all there is to be taught about a field, and have to progress on our own.

Quote
I could say the same thing to you. You can deny what you see, if it suits you, but that doesnt help persuade others. When it comes to beliefs people should hold both science and religion to the highest of standards, they should ask all the questions they can think of and refuse to accept anything till the individual is satisfied with a logical answer.

The scientific method is the very embodiment of your paragraph here. That's why it has the esteem it does.

Science is nothing more than a continual process of ever more rigorous observation, hypothesis, and testing. That is all it is, that is everything science is. Dishonesty is rooted out and politics only taints it, and this purity has enabled every single wonder of our modern age, because if someone lies or makes a mistake, you can test their hypothesis.

This of course gets a bit hairy when the only way to truly test something involves your entire planet.

Quote
That said, for me, science has failed to answer many of my questions regarding the big bang theory. It just doesnt make sense right now, so I refuse to accept it

Then make a thread in Elliquiy U and ask questions. I won't be able to answer everything, but the basics of how the Big Bang was established as a theory are not that complex, and they are not going to shake your faith unless you are a literalist.

Quote
Im not sure I understand you here. Applying metaphysical themes and concepts is fine and all but that doesnt make much sense in that context. Information is a concept, entropy is a an energy or force. A concept can manipulate an energy or force (like how time manipulates things with entropy) but an energy or force doesnt have power over a concept.

Information in the physical sense is not the same thing as "I know that 2+2=4". Rather, it refers to the location and velocity of particles and waves (and other dimensionful qualities of particles and waves and the fabric of spacetime that I am not necessarily qualified to explain, I only study information theory in the context of computer science, not particle physics).

A system of pure entropy has all of the information necessary to construct any prior state (with obscene amounts of computational power) - but none of it can be harnessed to perform work, because there is no gradient in that soup to perform work with. Does that make more sense?


Offline Kane Gunlock

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #67 on: September 05, 2010, 12:17:36 AM »
the thing that gets me is i hate how both atheist and Christians are so ready to dismiss others beliefs how do you know theirs not a god it my not exists in the way one would think but how would that prove its not real I tend to take the force route of belief in higher beings in that every one the force (god, chi,ect...) is mad up of every thing that we are the universe experiencing subjectively did any one think about that?

Offline Chevalier des PoissonsTopic starter

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #68 on: September 05, 2010, 12:23:07 AM »
the thing that gets me is i hate how both atheist and Christians are so ready to dismiss others beliefs how do you know theirs not a god it my not exists in the way one would think but how would that prove its not real I tend to take the force route of belief in higher beings in that every one the force (god, chi,ect...) is mad up of every thing that we are the universe experiencing subjectively did any one think about that?

That's my base point to say "The absence of a proof does not invalidate the point".

Offline Kane Gunlock

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #69 on: September 05, 2010, 12:27:18 AM »
true but you still shouldn't dismis some ones belief if it doesn't harm you I myself worship a giant monster mad of molten steel

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #70 on: September 05, 2010, 12:37:12 AM »
this is all incredibly informitive... I'm gonna stick to the virtues, and keep my faith alive, besides even if people disagree on god, if you read any of the holy books, they usually hit on the same themes of improving one's self, helping others, and living a good life for both yourself and civilization as a whole.
I admit a few theories have gone over my head, but I got most of it.
Thank you Vesked for preventing this from degenerating further.

Offline Kane Gunlock

Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #71 on: September 05, 2010, 12:41:24 AM »
this is all incredibly informitive... I'm gonna stick to the virtues, and keep my faith alive, besides even if people disagree on god, if you read any of the holy books, they usually hit on the same themes of improving one's self, helping others, and living a good life for both yourself and civilization as a whole.
I admit a few theories have gone over my head, but I got most of it.
Thank you Vesked for preventing this from degenerating further.
I agree if it improves your life why should it be a bad thing ?

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #72 on: September 05, 2010, 01:07:55 AM »
I admit, this chat got me to look up the heavenly virtues, I put them in my sig so I wouldn't forget them.
that is the essence of the message, right there, I choose to be a christian, but those virtues are the one thing they all agree on.
however, each faith is diffrent in how they go about attaining them... and within diffrent cultures people place diffrent values on each virtue.
Science lacks heart... this is why it's so useful, it's solid, logical, and almost always reliable.
As long as mankind can think in illogical or unothodox ways, as long as man can think of beauty, art, passion, and poetry, faith will always have a place in our civilizations.
Science and Faith are not enemies, they are parts of us.
kind of a Brain VS Heart debate to use an analogy

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #73 on: September 05, 2010, 01:46:40 AM »
Science and Faith are not enemies, they are parts of us.
kind of a Brain VS Heart debate to use an analogy

I like this.

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Stephen Hawkings says that God didn't create the universe
« Reply #74 on: September 05, 2010, 01:58:42 AM »
thanks
maybe I should go on a little bit more...
I believe that as long as the heart and mind disagree, and I think they always will, we will have debate on the merits of both Science and Faith, people will be debating it for a long long time, and that's a good thing. intellgent Debate brings benifits to both, and forces people them to reexamine and improve themselves.

sorry I get philiohical when tired... good night