Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 76
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the UniversePage 4 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
RE Msg: 75 by abelian:
For future reference, don't take anything in New Scientist seriously. The APS joutnals (e.g. phys rev lett., phys rev a,b,c,d,...) are peer reviewed by members of the APS who are experts in their field. In particular, no one indivisual is getting ``a whole load of reviews.''
That's exactly what the New Scientist said. However, there are a number of papers in each field, and there are only so many experts in each field who have been chosen to do the reviewing, and thus, the number of papers, IMO, should seriously outnumber the number of expert reviewers, within each field. Of course, if there are only a few papers published a year in each field, and each expert spends all the time necessary to review it, which means a fair bit of time for something that took years to develop, easily months if in a mathematically-based field, then it would have a lot more standing. But I cannot really quantify that, without having some definite figures on the subject. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of someone who does have expert knowledge on the process of peer-review, and wouldn't mind informing an ignorant upstart like myself?


It's also important to me to know who those reviewers are, after publication, for transparency.
You don't count.
Your dismissive statement is what I have encountered before, which is why I wrote earlier, that scientists wouldn't be willing to listen to my views on the issue of peer-reivew.

The purpose of a scientific journal is to disseminate information to other scientists, not appease lay readers who won't understand the content or put the article in the proper perspective (which is that very little is going to be of lasting significance).
I guess that I'd feel better about that, if there were 2 types of journals, one for other scientists, and not for lay people, including the media, and another for public consumption. But whenever I look up media reports of a scientific discovery, then it seems to come from the same scientific journals that you say are not for "lay readers". Sure, the media don't employ people without a knowledge of science, to read up on the latest PNAS articles. But they are not exactly expert enough that the media stories I read, all that often match what even the abstracts say, which I do look up, on the odd occasion.

I'm in a quandary. First you say that the journals are not for public consumption. So I cannot trust what I read in scientific journals. But if you don't offer anything else, then there is no reasonable way for lay people, which include the media, politicians, businessmen, and everyone else, to get information on new scientific discoveries. So I cannot trust any lay people from the media, the government, or businesses, who reads them, and tells the public what they mean. So then I can only trust scientists who explain their ideas to the public.

If they explain them well, all well and good, and some do. That's where a lot of my scientific information comes from. It's why I like to watch so many science programmes on TV. I select the ones in which professors explain their own findings. It's also why I like to read the New Scientist, because most of the articles ARE written by scientists, and published as such.

Some scientists leave me with a problem with everything they say, that, whether they are right or not, it isn't consistent, to my understanding. Even thinking about them at length, doesn't seem to help my understanding of those scentists. It just makes me find even more problems. So then, at best, I have something that even the person who came up with it, cannot seem to elucidate to me. I cannot work with something that doesn't make any sense at all to me.

I do watch scientists explanations about major physics, like the ones about black holes, and the Big Bang, and things like that. But these seem to end with a lot of physicists saying "We don't really know about black holes", "I really don't like Dark Matter, and would prefer that it goes away", things like that. Although I have a gist of what physicists are saying, I feel so non-plussed, that I end up feeling like I really want to read the maths behind it, because they aren't helping me. So maybe if I read what they read, I might at least understand that. But I really haven't put enough effort into learning particle physics and quantum physics for myself, only on a basic UK high school level.

But overall, such an approach would mean that I would have to discount all the normal sources for scientific discoveries to come to the public, which, I would imagine, most people would see as ignoring science completely.

So for now, either I listen to you, and take an approach that would seem to be me ignoring science completely, or I can put your words on the back burner, to check with people in the field that I meet or contact, to explain what you mean. I'm not sure which to do.

If you want a say in what the APS does, join the APS.
I'm not an American. So even if I did want to join an association of Physicists, it would be a British association. But even then, let's be honest, you and other physicists wouldn't give me the time of day unless I was accredited by working full-time in the field or an associated field in an established university. All of that requires getting into academia and having to deal with office politics, which I sucked at, and so badly, I realised that I would not do be happy at all, until I felt I could deal with office politics, or that I could work for someone who would field all that stuff for me. Maybe in the future, I'd re-consider a career in academia.

The reason that referees are anonymous is to allow them to the freedom to reject a paper from someone of Hawking's stature without fear of repercussions.
I got that. I still don't understand why the scientific community would want to give them repercussions in the first place. But, hey, if that's the way it runs, then that's the way it runs. I won't quibble on your testimony on that.

There's already more junk in journals than ought to be there. If you want the junk that gets rejected, but could possibly be of some interest to someone, no matter how unlikely that might be, try arxive.org. It's the world eprint repository for mathematics, physics and a few other disciplines.
Fair enough, and thanks for the pointer.


But it doesn't necessarily take into account that it based on mathematical results that are based on our observations of our universe.
Well, you have to start somewhere and since the goal is to explain this universe, that probably seemed like a good place to start. On the other hand, the only constraint imposed on it is that the 3-geometry is a compact manifold without boundary. Strictly speaking, the model is at least incomplete, however it's sufficiently general to make predictions which agree with observation despite being incomplete. However, the real argument being made against theism here is more due to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation,

H Psi = 0

Since H is the Hamiltonian (i.e., the energy constraint) for all possible field configurations on spacetime, one needs to show that there exists a solution to this equation. If the equation above has a solution, then the total energy is zero at all times and there is nothing objectionable about the universe arising from nothing. The Hartle-Hawking wavefunction is such a solution, so what they've shown is that there are in fact universes which have features that are at least similar to ours which can arise from nothing with maximal probability. That supports what Hawking did say, which is that a god was not necessary.
That's quite similar to what the vid said, about the zero-sum energy point. I still had problems with that. But since this seems to have got me into very hot water with everyone, and you do have a clear point, I'm thinking that maybe I just ought to put this also on the back-burner, until I learn enough of this type of physics (I don't want to say QM, in case someone starts arguing that it's particle physics, or something else, as that's happened before on this forum).

But if you do post back that you do not mind more questions on this, then I would be only too happy to post my more questions, as that way, I could hope to get them resolved.

I'd say that Hawking's claim is sensational only because he happens to be famous. In his book, ``God: The Failed Hypothesis,'' Victor Stenger does a much better job of reducing whatever role there is for a god to almost nothing based on things we know very well and that pretty much rules out any judeo-christian god.
Can't say that I've read it. I have seen a few documentaries that do a nice summary of the arguments against theism. Unfortunately, it wasn't of the level of Hitchens. A lot of the points the presenter made, contradicted themselves, but in subtle, and not overt ways, at least, that's what I noticed. As it is, I suppose I COULD read it. But many of the arguments made today, are actually arguments that were very old in the 70s when I was a kid. They've just been dressed up in new, more scientific terminology. But the fundamentals of so many arguments are the same as they ever were. So it's quite difficult for me, because I've heard so many of them before, just in an old version.

Even Stephen Hawking's argument is not dissimilar to arguments that I myself proposed to myself at the age of 14, although his argument is not even as strong as the one I employed on myself.

I think I'd enjoy reading Stenger's book, only on the condition, that if I found serious flaws with his arguments, that I could go and debate them out with him face-to-face. Outside of that, it would just be me giving yet another person the benefit of the doubt, when I've done that many times before, to no avail.

But I'm sure that it's a good read, and I'm sure that he's presented points that many haven't heard before. I doubt tha most people were arguing over proofs of theism when they were in their teens.

Personally, I don't see what all of the fuss is about.
It's because Hawking is a scientist. People take scientists' word for it on anything. If you said that drinking at least 10 cans of Coca-Cola every single day of your life was good for you, people would believe you, because "you're a scientist", which is often followed up with "you're really smart, you know lots, and we are very stupid, and know very little, so whatever you say, you must be right". Consider yourself religiously infallible, at least from a large portion of the populace. They'll only disagree with you, if you say something that they do all the time, is wrong, like that drinking lots of alcohol is bad for you. But outside of that, you have more power than the Pope.


For instance, Pythagoras' theorem cannot be argued with. However, it does assume that one is dealing with a Euclidean space, which requires the assumption of Euclid's Fifth Axiom.
So? That's equivalent to equipping a manifold with a flat metric which is positive definite. Since we can use rulers to measure things, one might expect the universe to have a metric. Our universe is, in fact equipped with a Lorentzian metric, however, in the Hartle-Hawking wavefunction, what's relevant is the spatial part of the metric. (That what the 3^g or 3^G means).
Try writing out every axiom and every method of logic that you require to prove the existence of a positive, definite, flat metric on a manifold, in wffs, in pure logic. Or try proving it Pythagoras' Theorem using pure logical statements, and nothing else, no geometrical shapes, no algebra, no arithmetic, nothing but pure logic. It's doable, because mathematics is all logic. But you won't be able to do it, without putting in all those extra axioms. I tried to consider all the axioms that were required just for basic arithmetic, for instance, to prove 1 + 1 = 2, you require to define 1, +, =, and 2, and show they all exist, or assume they exist as axioms, and then define the extra condition that allows for the existence of combinations of elements that can be used as counting, to become another element, in an arithmetical way. It made my head spin. Apparently some mathematician did it, and it took him almost 150 pages!

A lot of what we do in maths, seems to me, to be context sensitive.


Even then, it still carries a lot of assumptions about the nature of geometry and arithmetic, that are generally assumed to be true for all spaces.
Since they state right up front that the functional is a functional of the metric, I don't see the problem. That isn't a ``lot of assumptions.'' It's a few assumptions based on some very simple observations, like the fact that we can measures distances. Hint: First figure out what the gravitational field has to do with the metric and note that the Hartle-Hawking wavefunction has something to do with quantum gravity.
Again, all of those "few" assumptions, I'd have to prove, using pure logic, and nothing else, no arithmetic, no calculus, nothing but pure logical statements. Then I'd be able to see just what assumptions I would need to prove it all. I am of the opinion to prove something like the existence of a Hamiltonian, could take a few hundred axioms alone. Just to prove calculus, requires the existence of continuous domains, and the existence of pairs of sequences that converge roughly in parallel, that both map to groups, and have norms over both, which both map to the same field, and probably way more than that.


But we cannot say this universe's wavefunction reaches a maximal, about universes in general, only about a subset of them.
Eh? The point of a functional is to write down a completely general expression and pick out the subset of functions that extremize it, preferably leaving exactly one uniiverse - ours - as the most probable. All Hawking has done is to provide a model of a lot of universes in which god has, at best, a very small role to play, which is nothing like whatever concept of god as a personal exists in religion.
It is probably a very general statement for physics. I don't think it would be something that I would consider to be a general expression. But then, I've been thinking on what qualifies as a general expression for 20 years now, and what I think now, is very different from what I was taught. I have thought about standing up and saying what I've worked out. But I still think I need to solve a major problem before anyone would be willing to listen to me, and I still doubt that anyone would anyway.

So maybe I'm a nutcase on this, and I ought to get back to solving some riddles I am working on, mathematically speaking.

I hope that you can forgive a nutcase for bothering you.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 77
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/19/2010 4:59:13 PM

I'm in a quandary. First you say that the journals are not for public consumption. So I cannot trust what I read in scientific journals.


I think the point is more that you cannot UNDERSTAND in adequate context, due to the direction and focus of your education to this point, what you read in the serious scientific journals. It not that you can't TRUST it. You just lack the background and training to decide what is reasonable or where there may be holes in the research.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 78
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/19/2010 10:33:11 PM
...And that is supposedly the end of the debate? If that were true we should just annihilate everybody but the scientists because they are so educated and right. Holes in their research? Big ones..caused by their hubris and way too many toys to amuse them through their very educated and blind days. Aaah. Each victory gained by science pails in comparison to the losses experienced.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 79
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/20/2010 4:15:07 AM

Each victory gained by science pails(sic) in comparison to the losses experienced.


...says the woman posting to an online forum on a computer in the middle of backwoods Canada.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 80
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/20/2010 5:25:51 AM
"backwoods Canada?"

Would that be anywhere north of Highway 7 in Toronto?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 81
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/20/2010 12:04:19 PM
RE Msg: 77 by desertrhino:
I think the point is more that you cannot UNDERSTAND in adequate context, due to the direction and focus of your education to this point, what you read in the serious scientific journals.
Then I cannot falsify anything in it. But if I cannot falsify it, I cannot find it to be true either. So then, I can only take the perspective that it is just as likely to be false or true. All I could do then, is treat it as a hypothetical suggestion that anyone could make, but without validity.

It not that you can't TRUST it.
I trust scientists completely. I trust them to obey the laws of science, just like all inanimate objects, and all animals, including humans. One of this is the principle of scientific induction, which is that if something follows the same pattern of behaviour, then without anything happening that will force it to change its behaviour, it will continue to do so. So, whatever pattern of behaviour can be observed by yourself about a scentists, or about a group of scientists, then by scientific induction, they will continue in such manner.

You just lack the background and training to decide what is reasonable or where there may be holes in the research.
If I cannot say if it is unreasonable, then I cannot say it is reasonable. If I cannot say if it has holes, I cannot say it doesn't. So it becomes something that is equally likely to me, to be unreasonable as much as reasonable, and to have no holes as much as to have 1 hole or 2 holes or 3 holes or more holes. So then I can only take the perspective that it is at best, just as likely to be false or true. All I could do then, is treat it as a hypothetical suggestion that anyone could make, but without validity.
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 82
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/20/2010 11:52:53 PM

Hey merely

You wrote in response to my saying that hawking was expressing an opinion:
"Not really Paul K, Hawking was really just pointing out that something came out of nothing."
What is that if not an opinion??

Then you wrote:
"My point to you was that really, Hawking is outside of his field of expertise... philosophy covers this realm, not physics."

So now you agree that hawking was giving opinion?

Paul K


This was a long time back but I meant to answer it.

Basically, Paul K, I believe that Hawking's opinion that the universe needs no creator to come into existence is an expert opinion being that he is an accomplished physicist. An expert opinion is still an opinion, but it should be given more weight than a layman's opinion.

Now, whether or not god exists outside of the universe is a different question, just because no evidence comes from physics that there has to be a god doesn't mean there isn't a god.

I would say that philosophy answered that question allot longer before science did though. Also, that's why I think that Hawking is simultaneously outside of his field of expertise, but still put his scientific evidence that explains that god doesn't have to exist in order for the universe to exist in the expert category.
 Paul K
Joined: 3/10/2006
Msg: 83
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/21/2010 11:56:45 AM
Hey merely

You wrote:

"I would say that philosophy answered that question allot longer before science did though. Also, that's why I think that Hawking is simultaneously outside of his field of expertise, but still put his scientific evidence that explains that god doesn't have to exist in order for the universe to exist in the expert category."

You should be a politician, as you covered both sides of the argument perfectly. I do agree with your current assesment.

You wrote:
"Now, whether or not god exists outside of the universe is a different question, just because no evidence comes from physics that there has to be a god doesn't mean there isn't a god."

Very nicely put, I agree.

Paul K
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 84
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/21/2010 12:33:14 PM

Now, whether or not god exists outside of the universe is a different question, just because no evidence comes from physics that there has to be a god doesn't mean there isn't a god.


Doesn't mean there is one, either. The point of Hawking's statement is that God isn't needed to explain the existence of the universe.

And, if God is not the explanation for anything, isn't the consequence of that is that God is not the explanation for anything?
 gingergeek
Joined: 5/23/2010
Msg: 85
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/21/2010 2:54:03 PM
desertrhino


I think the point is more that you cannot UNDERSTAND in adequate context, due to the direction and focus of your education to this point, what you read in the serious scientific journals. It not that you can't TRUST it. You just lack the background and training to decide what is reasonable or where there may be holes in the research.


What utter garbage, people have the ability to learn, people are clever creatures, they can work things out. their are many scientists who have done much without having the "background and training" , its just such an eliteist statement . Albeit, the media will always manipulate things to fit in with their own adjenda. but never ever rule out joe average. some of them aren't average at all.

For the rest, i can only echo some others opinions. My personal opinion is that no gods exist, but as many have said, i have no way to disprove their existance just as much as i have evidence to prove their exsistence. science from my point of view has given far more answers than the majority of the religeous books combined. I find the science more "believable", its a measured thing, for it to be scientific it needs to be robust and be replicated. we can't replicate what happened within religeous texts, but their are many experiments you can do again and again.

Belief is a funny thing isn't it?

Cheers
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 86
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/21/2010 3:29:37 PM
stargazer1000:
And, if God is not the explanation for anything, isn't the consequence of that is that God is not the explanation for anything?


Only if nihilism, a valueless existence, is what we want to hold as truth.

We can overcome nihilism without a god, sure, but some sort of creator of values of will ultimately be needed for "the masses"(the majority of non-reflective society of which most physical scientists are themselves a part of) to do so.

Its uncommon for one to be able to look at one's mortality with a straight face and not believe in some sort of meaningful purpose for life. Science provides no meaningful purpose for life. Science doesn't confront mortality, it delays it, ignores it, and tries to defy it. Science is not creative, it merely observes what has been created, by who knows what? Maybe nothing? So natural science is not value creating at all, its value destroying.

So, the question wasn't if god was needed to explain the existence of the universe in the first place, but wether mankind needs a creator of values in order to have a complete and meaningful existence.
 Paul K
Joined: 3/10/2006
Msg: 87
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/21/2010 3:36:19 PM
Hey ginger
you wrote:
"science from my point of view has given far more answers than the majority of the religeous books combined."

As it well should. Since you you referred to "religeous books", I will assume that you meant "science books" at the beginning of your statement. I am certain that you wouldn't find many equations or formulas in religious books, as you wouldn't find religious content in books of science either. What some religous teaching purports to do is to explain things that science has no answer for either. Granted, it is a faith level belief, so it can be dismissed by those who don't believe.

I agree with your statement.

Paul K
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 88
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/21/2010 3:55:43 PM
Paul K:
You should be a politician, as you covered both sides of the argument perfectly. I do agree with your current assesment.


Thanks Paul, thats flattering, I doubt I would get very far because to get votes a politician needs to flatter the masses. It would probably be fun to watch me run for public office and be critical of my own electorate.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 89
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/21/2010 4:40:07 PM


And, if God is not the explanation for anything, isn't the consequence of that is that God is not the explanation for anything?


Only if nihilism, a valueless existence, is what we want to hold as truth.


Why is that the only alternative, except to demand a false choice of God or nothing? What "meaning" life ultimately has is entirely your own choice. And your own responsibility. However, the constant assertion that only "God" can lay the foundation of a basic moral code is not only wrong, it's at least paternalistic and at worst insulting.


Science doesn't confront mortality, it delays it, ignores it, and tries to defy it. Science is not creative, it merely observes what has been created, by who knows what? Maybe nothing? So natural science is not value creating at all, its value destroying.


Again, utter nonsense! Science does not remove anyone's basic requirement to be good to their fellow human being. Indeed, science has shown that what we term "morality" actually has an evolutionary basis in group behaviours seen in several species.

I'm not religious. I'm at best ambivalent to the concept of "God" and I'm very enthusiastic to the latest findings in a variety of areas of science. Are you trying to say that, on that basis, I lack a basic morality? Well, I think I tend to treat people pretty good and certainly haven't killed anyone yet. Indeed, some of the worst crimes against humanity have been performed in the name of "God."

So the evidence would appear to contradict your supposition.


So, the question wasn't if god was needed to explain the existence of the universe in the first place, but wether mankind needs a creator of values in order to have a complete and meaningful existence.


Please feel free, with as few equivocations and prevarications as possible, to demonstrate how this is true.
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 90
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/21/2010 4:59:23 PM
stargazer1000:
Science does not remove anyone's basic requirement to be good to their fellow human being.


Sure it doesn't, but science also doesn't posit any moral values.


Indeed, science has shown that what we term "morality" actually has an evolutionary basis in group behaviours seen in several species.


What we term as "morality" is a bit deeper that what the scientists are examining in chimps and other animals. Are you saying that animals reflect on their mortality, and that science has confirmed evidence of this? Are you saying that Animals think about justice, and that science has confirmed evidence of this? Sorry, but while I can believe that a chimp group might split up food in a way it thinks its done "fairly", I don't buy that they are thinking about what happens after they die, or that they are contemplating justice and what it is. What you have proposed is just another example of how science breaks everything down to the lowest common denominator. This is exactly the reason why science is not value positing, it doesn't question existence or create anything, it merely observes facts and posits conclusions based on those facts.


Indeed, some of the worst crimes against humanity have been performed in the name of "God."


But those weren't crimes, those were actions of honesty and commitment to belief. If you read some of the wiki links to great book literature I put above maybe you will get a better understanding of what morality is than simply "nice behavior".
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 91
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/21/2010 6:40:58 PM
So, the question wasn't if god was needed to explain the existence of the universe in the first place, but wether mankind needs a creator of values in order to have a complete and meaningful existence.

stargazer1000:

Please feel free, with as few equivocations and prevarications as possible, to demonstrate how this is true.


Do you think that a valueless existence is a full and meaningful existence? Is life just all about being comfortable and peacefully coexisting with every other being on the planet? To me, that sounds allot like living the life of a herd animal. Not questioning which way to go, but following the herd. Not doing anything to upset the norm that is the herd. It is all about being a creature without any beliefs or will of its own. Its just nihilism.

There doesn't need to be a god to create values, but values need a creator. For example, I don't believe in god, but I believe in values. A god didn't create those values though, people did. Those values did not come from science though, because science doesn't affirm moral values. Science lacks that creative power.

You took offense from my claim that science creates no values because you are atheistic. So am I. When I examine where my values come from though, I realize they don't come from science, they are created by mankind.

Even if the animals observed by scientists do have values and morality, science didn't create it. Science is the study of material existence, not moral existence.
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 92
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/21/2010 7:11:39 PM
Oops, I realized i put those links on another thread, this is where morality comes from, philosophy, not science. Science doesn't create culture. Morals come from culture.

Take a quick read through this stuff:

The Republic (Plato): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_(Plato)

The Prince (Machiavelli): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince

Two Treatises on Government: (Locke) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government

The Federalist Papers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

New Atlantis (Bacon): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atlantis

Politics and the Arts (Rousseau)

& Nietzsche,

Twilight of the Idols: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_of_the_Idols,

Thus spoke Zarathustra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra,

The Anti-christ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antichrist_(book),

On the Genealogy of Morality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Genealogy_of_Morality

After Buddha was dead people showed his shadow for centuries afterwards in a cave,—an immense frightful shadow. God is dead: but as the human race is constituted, there will perhaps be caves for millenniums yet, in which people will show his shadow.—And we—we have still to overcome his shadow! - Nietzsche
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 93
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/21/2010 10:20:38 PM
I have a problem with all these erudite, faded, dead, wrong men links and when the heck did all these educated unconscious males figure they have the ultimate say because they say it so so much better in their own minds but they died just like the rest of us and you bet you have to follow shadows because the alternative leaves you starved even after good steak and it is the middle of the night and your education runs out and you realize you have much knowledge but you have nothing more. Oh but I invented the Internet and thank you for cancer treatments and don't forget the flippin atom bomb and I really thank you for the power in my indoor lights and heating, but I wonder why it may all be descending into a denominator of have not and I am not thankful to man. Never. Who can buy the wonders of medical science and all of the rest of the whistles and bells when we all begin the steps down the ladder of what we deserve? But it is easier to believe in Man....why not? Man is the ultimate deceiver. Actually...who invented all of these flippin military weapons and ugliness that masks itself as defence and who invented a space program that robbed the poor and etc. Peace.
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 94
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/21/2010 10:29:33 PM
That was allot to allege in very poor grammar without any support 60 to 70.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 95
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/21/2010 10:42:48 PM
Hey grammar is part of the plot of keeping your mind indoctrinated, you know? And by the way can I correct you? "that was allot" should be typed, yes typed...as...." that was a lot..." without any support? Who are you to say so? Allege is based on my evidence and wide reading and a heck of lot of experience. I actually respect results more than you, and the rest. And do not be lazy in your keyboard skills... it has a lot to say about your character as you feel so free to remark about mine. Lol.
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 96
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/22/2010 1:28:22 AM
60 to 70: "Indoctrinated" you call me, as if you are free, but who the hell taught you to be rude and type in a way that is hard to read? I don't type to be a "special" person like you that is better than the rest of us who at least do our best to make it easy for other people who take the time to read what we write.

You said that the great thinkers who I provided as examples of value positing men were no better than the rest of us because they were mortal... well, guess what... if they weren't mortal, then they wouldn't be very good value creators for mortals, because the same rules of life wouldn't apply.

I'm not really sure what your point was other that nihilism. You are a nothing believer. Sure, you can argue against everything, including trying to make anything you write easy for others to read, but thats only to be a difficult person to be with.

People like you are truly worthless even to the most easy and accepting type of person that can be. I'd be surprised if most people who know you enjoy your company.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 97
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/24/2010 10:21:53 PM
I only reminded you that you can also take some lecturing. And...how you got from that to telling me that nobody enjoys my company is just plain wrong. The end.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 98
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/24/2010 10:26:32 PM
"Stephen Hawking is almost completely paralyzed, he speaks through a computer, his is eternally limp as wilted lettuce and he poops into a bag.
/
Is it any wonder that he doesn't believe in God?"

I think it's more of a miracle, actually.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 99
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/24/2010 10:32:41 PM
Even Stevie can't know. He is not saying that, is he?

Oh, and about expert opinion: The Pontiff says there is a god.

Which expert should I believe? Especially about as important and useless an information whether there is god or no?

Hawking is a physicist. The pope does not design Hadron Colliders.

I think people should do their business what they've been hired for. It's against union rules for a physicist to clean house in a spiritual matter, much like your parish priest should not dabble in discussions on evolution.
 mccullough64
Joined: 11/11/2006
Msg: 100
view profile
History
Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe
Posted: 10/26/2010 9:34:37 PM
it's always easy to call something a "Stupid","pseudo", or "invalid" question when you dont want to deal with the answer. as long as the question - why is there something instead of nothing? - is a genuine one. God remains a possible answer. additionally the spirit of science has always been one of curiosity it seems unusual that such a lack of curiosity should appear and no science of logic be applied to the question I think the question "why is there some thing instead of nothing"?. is legitimate. that there is probably no way of testing scientificly to see if the something of the universe has been here forever that means the origin or lack of origin of the universe cannot be scientifically discovered or proven.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe