|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hawking Comes Clean | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
So, what can one do when made redundant but drink in the pub all day and attempt to justify one's existence?
Jesus and Mo Edited by bluegenes, : added link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
This youtube video clears that up. Yep, he can almost explain it as well as me Good to see that others still appreciate their Ward & Wells (light green book on left shoulder) - learnt my sheaf theory from that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3887 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
quote: you know what would be awesome? If, to prove the theory that there is no god, somebody actually went and built a machine that created a universe. ...and then claimed there was no god. divide by zero! oh shi- Edited by greyseal, : fixed a quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
If you are proposing to do a survey here and claim no agenda, maybe, just maybe you should not be posting to threads that would possibly expose your OLV(or whatever the hell acronym you used.)
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3656 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Come on theodoric be honest, I am quite sure you (and everyone else here)would not have any objections to anyone who does a survey, if that person happens to have an evolutionists OLV.
Its not the bias you object to, its your perception of his particular bias. You would never ever mind an evolutionists bias.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
In a well done study you would not be able to tell the position of the surveyor.
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2977 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
You would never ever mind an evolutionists bias. If the subject is cosmology, as is discussed in this thread, then I would question what an evolutionary biologist had to say. Or are you just lumping in anyone who favors science over fairy tales into the "evolutionist" camp? - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3656 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Well, I was going to continue this discussion in the "Is the criticism justifiable thread", but I see it is closed now, so nevermind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
So you also see the bias.
That is the issue. A person doing a survery should show no bias. You also agree that you see a bias. The survey is biased by the fact the people being surveyed know the bias of the person doing the survey. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:It sounds like Hawking (like LaPlace) is arguing against a "God of the gaps." But he must assume that "there is a law such as gravity." This is the "elephant in the room." Why is there "a law such as gravity?" Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the law of gravity (or any physical law) keep working consistently? Why does the universe behave according to these laws? Are physical laws really "inevitable" as Hawking believes? Are physical laws logical prior to the universe's existence (as his statement implies), or is their existence contingent on the universe? These questions are all metaphysical, not scientific. Science can tell us how these laws work (in a mechanistic sense), but not why they work or exist (in an ontological sense). As Donald MacKay wrote in his excellent booklet, "The Clockwork Image:"
Donald MacKay writes: Scientific laws do not prescribe what must happen; they describe what has happened. The earth does not go round the sun because Newton's (or Einstein's) law makes it, or tells it to. The earth goes its own way, and the scientific laws are our generalized way of describing how it goes. All that they prescribe are our expectations. Presumably, Hawking's metaphysical perspective would see the "laws of physics" as some sort of "inevitable," self-generating, self-sustaining, perhaps eternal, principles of the universe. The biblical perspective would see them as something metaphysically much simpler; contingent minute-by-minute on God, their consistency a direct consequence of God's consistent character. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3986 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
The earth does not go its own way.
Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?! -Gogol Bordello
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
kb writes: Why is there something rather than nothing? If there is a god he will be asking himself that very question. It's turtles all the way down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2157 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
My friend John Lennox explained this more clearly than I did:
John Lennox writes:
from the Daily Mail Online, Sept 3, 2010, Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Daily Mail Online
... as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking's claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict. But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine. That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own - but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent. Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved. To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton's laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms. Hawking's argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?... Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Showing that he really has no understanding of what has been said...
quote: No, not in the way we are talking about "laws". Confusing I know, but the "laws" are the Universe.
quote: Does he? Where? ABE: Reading his article, I'm afraid it is obvious that your friend has some serious delusions:
quote: quote: quote: Come on GDR, you know the serious problems with these statements without blinking - you shouldn't be letting a friend make such an arse of himself in the press! His theological and scientific credibity has just fallen out of sight... Read more: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Daily Mail Online Edited by cavediver, : No reason given. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
Presumably, Hawking's metaphysical perspective would see the "laws of physics" as some sort of "inevitable," self-generating, self-sustaining, perhaps eternal, principles of the universe. The biblical perspective would see them as something metaphysically much simpler; contingent minute-by-minute on God, their consistency a direct consequence of God's consistent character. (emphasis mine) In what possible sense is supposing a superbeing exists behind the scenes proding the universe to make it work metaphysically simpler than supposing the mechanistic laws of the universe exist?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024