|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hawking Comes Clean | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Agreed. But the claim that "a god is not required" is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific statement. quote:Whether or not these statements are true depends on one's metaphysical view of the universe. There's a big difference between the following two statements:1) It is not necessary to invoke God in order to scientifically explain the functioning of the universe. 2) God's existence is not necessary for the functioning of the universe. The first is a statement of methodological naturalism, accepted by nearly all practicing scientists and having no metaphysical implications. The second is a metaphysical claim about the universe. If this distinction seems too subtle, consider the following two statements:1) It is not necessary to invoke oxygen in order to do mathematics. 2) The existence of oxygen is not necessary for us to do mathematics. The first statement is true; the second is false. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8552 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
1) It is not necessary to invoke oxygen in order to do mathematics. 2) The existence of oxygen is not necessary for us to do mathematics. A strawman ... and a loaded one at that. Here, let's make it more generic and unload the stupid: 1) It is not necessary to invoke Paris Hilton in order to do mathematics.2) The existence of Paris Hilton is not necessary for us to do mathematics. That's better. Both statements are true and are equivalent. Now: 1) It is not necessary to invoke Paris Hilton for the functioning of the universe.2) Paris Hilton's existence is not necessary for the functioning of the universe. Again, both are true and are equivalent. Finally: 1) It is not necessary to invoke God for the functioning of the universe.2) God's existence is not necessary for the functioning of the universe. Wow. Both are equivalent and both are true! Except for one small problem. Paris Hilton and God are equivalent. Actually, that does explain a lot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The universe and its laws become self-created, uncaused, and complex. No, the Universe appears self-consistent, logical, and simple.
The universe effectively becomes deified. Possibly, but without the Judeo-Christian attributes of love, hate, jealousy, "holiness", desire to kill that which doesn't fit in with its plans, requirement for worship, necessity to sacrifice part of it own nature to satisify its own made up rules, over-concern with where men stick their dicks, etc, etc. Now, about God being the more simple picture?
As the Apostle Paul said of those who reject God... Ah, yes, Paul's great condemnation of scientists
Isn't it simpler to postulate that the automobile was self-caused? Ah, so that's what you think we have done? Just postulated that the Universe is self-caused. Shit, and to think of all the years the community spent working on this, and all we needed to do was postulate it. If we'd known you were so easy to please, we could have spent all that time drinking. Actually, if memory serves, I think we spent most of it drinking anyway...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4916 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Agreed. But the claim that "a god is not required" is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific statement. {snipped quote} Whether or not these statements are true depends on one's metaphysical view of the universe. There's a big difference between the following two statements: ... Agreed. There is. My statement was probably errant, now that you point out the distinction in clear terms. Now I'd like to pick on this: I claimed that the laws of physics are metaphysically simpler in a biblical perspective than in an atheistic perspective. In the biblical worldview, the universe and its laws are creations of an eternal, infinite, uncaused, complex God. In an atheistic worldview, God does not exist and His attributes must be ascribed to the universe and its laws. The universe and its laws become self-created, uncaused, and complex. The universe effectively becomes deified.
If the atheist position is that the universe and its laws are all that exist, and the theist position is that the universe and its laws exist in addition to God -- these are generalised positions because it's simpler to discuss that way -- then the atheist position is necessarily simpler: it uses fewer entities in its explanation of the universe. To say that the inclusion of God in an explanation of the universe is simpler, when you already have the laws and properties known, seems quite contrary to the idea of "simpler" in all senses of the word.For example, which of the sets {Newton's laws of motion} and {Newton's laws of motion, God} is simpler? Does one explain more about the functioning of the universe than the other? As it happens, let us revise the original statement:"The only thing it implies is exactly what it says: if a god does exist, it is not necessary to our explanation of the universe functioning as we normally do. If the god does not exist, then we wouldn't notice the difference in our explanations." Which is more accurate and more in line with both our reasoning, I think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Does Hawking really use the terms "laws of physics" (or "laws of nature") and "universe" as interchangeable? No, like most intelligent people, he sees context as important. If he states
quote: do you really think that by "law" he is merely talking about our current understanding? How stupid do you think he is? A correct paraphrase of what he said is "because of the nature of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing". Now, I would never actully speak in such terms. I would always deny any kind of "creation from nothing" to attempt to describe the situation accurately. Stephen doesn't give a shit - he's putting it this way as he knows it will kick up. He enjoys that.
I have a hard time believing that Hawking is this sloppy in his language. Yet you find it very easy to think that he would say something as idiotic as "because of our understanding of gravity, the universe can create itself from nothing"...
Perhaps some small subgroup of theoretical cosmologists actually does use the terms in this way. But I've never heard such usage. Not in grad school, not at any of the national labs where I've worked, not among the particle physicists or cosmologists who I work with now Then you've never worked in or amongst those working in quantum gravity - or you have not been privy to their conversations. Did you not even study any quantum cosmology in your grad work? Go chat to Jim Hartle - he can't be too far from you - or Joe Polchinski.
Most scientists want to view the laws as something more fundamental, more basic, more integral to the fabric of the universe. I am fairly sure that this is Hawking's perspective. But this is a metaphysical perspective, not a scientific one. No, it is not You may still be at the stage of thinking of an electron as a little hard ball of matter which we model with equations. If so, I'd say you've nearly 100 years of catch up ahead of you...
I would answer that God did it, by upholding the law we know of as Newton II. define "god", define "upholding". Explain how this changes the situation.
he claimed that God was not needed, implying that God does not exist. Only if you are ignorant of the meaning of the word "implying".
But Hawking did mention God, and that's the problem. yeah, 'cos Christians and creations NEVER mention the Big Bang do they
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Agreed. But the claim that "a god is not required" is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific statement. I'm sorry, you keep mentioning this word "god". What is a "god". Can you define this otherwise your entire claim makes no sense what-so-ever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
kbertsche writes:
It seems to me that it just says that there is no role for a "god of the gaps".
But the claim that "a god is not required" is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
You make a lot of statements cloaked as a fact In message 44? Really? Care to point them out to me?
The laws are not the universe, simply by virtue of you saying they are. If I say "when we say, 'laws', what we mean in this context is..." then, yes, they are exactly what I say they are by virtue of me saying so - sort of a tautology, don't you think? Of course, I am also speaking for Hawking here, so you could argue that that was not what he meant. So perhaps you'd like to explain what you think he meant, and why...
You can think about what you feels makes up the universe, and what you feel is reality, but it is no more valid, and carries no more weight than what anyone else thinks. Yep. In exactly the same way that car mechanics know no more about cars than your average driver. And why doctors really have no clue compared to the general populace when it comes to heart sugery. And when it comes to piloting the Shuttle, Nasa has traditionally gone for bus drivers.
The "laws" of the universe appear to be intelligently crafted. They have consistency, they have order, they have contingencies Indeed they do have consistency, order and contingencies. So much so that the more we delve the more constrained they appear. What room then for any level of "crafting"? It appears that they are the only way they can be. Doesn't leave much if any room for design.
What we see, what many people see is a type of order I agree. We see so much order that it leaves no room for design, no room for choice. Sort of the opposite of what you are looking for really.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3656 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Well, let's see, I wrote that a theoretical physicist has no more intrinsic ability to look at the world around them, see the order, imagine what is chaos, and draw conclusions about the unseen. You of course responded by saying, "but cavediver is a theorectical physicist!"
Well, how about that. I suppose if you are willing to concede your ability to draw conclusions about a higher being to a physicist, then I guess you always are willing to concede your intelligence on such matters to a priest, a minister or a theologian as well. So if they tell you there must be a God, who are you to argue with them? Fortunately for me, i have made no such concessions on my ability to make such judgments, so I am free to speculate. I am very sorry that you don't enjoy the same liberties. You do know that cavediver was an evangelical Christian for much of his life, so do you suppose at that time he had the ability to know how wrong he was, or is it only now that he has this ability? Is he only smart about such matters now, that he has declared there is no God? How many other things about life are you willing to defer your ability to reason about? Would you take marriage advice from Stephen Hawking? Fashion advice from Einstein. Pet grooming tips from Erwin Schrdinger?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3656 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Yep. In exactly the same way that car mechanics know no more about cars than your average driver. And why doctors really have no clue compared to the general populace when it comes to heart sugery. And when it comes to piloting the Shuttle, Nasa has traditionally gone for bus drivers. When your pastor tells you that there is a God, I am glad to know that you will now be agreeing that he knows a heck of a lot more about this than you, so you will take his word for it. Congratulations of your re-conversion!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
nwr writes: Hyroglyphics writes: Hyro writes:First Cause arguments seem pointless because it's an infinite loop of semantics and where no evidence from either side can be given. I completely agree.This kind of argument is no more convincing when it comes from Hawking than when it comes from a religious apologist If all would simply cite 1LoT and Biblical creationists would cite the Biblical record along with 1LoT, all could go, figure and assume that the Universe has eternally existed, that being compatible with observed LoT and that Jehovah, creator, has existed in the cosmos eternally according to the Biblical record. If there was a first cause there is no valid theory or hypothetical premise until there is an explanation for it. Void of an explanable first clause, the universe should be assumed by both camps to be eternal. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
You do know that cavediver was an evangelical Christian for much of his life, so do you suppose at that time he had the ability to know how wrong he was All I am describing here I came to realise many many years ago, deep in my time as an evangelical Christian. I was actually a member of a Vineyard fellowship at the time, if the name means anything to you. It had zero impact on my faith, for the simple reason that my faith was based on, err, well, faith. It was the same time that I discovered that there was practically zero archaeological evidence backing up the pre-captivity OT, and that morality was perfectly explained by evolution. Again, effect on my faith? Not a jot. See above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Buz writes: Void of an explanable first clause, the universe should be assumed by both camps to be eternal. Is there a valid theory or any evidence is support of anything being eternal? Anything eternal would be in a state of maximum entropy according to the laws of thermodynamics would it not? Given that the universe does not appear to be in a state of maximum entropy I don't think we can reasonably assume that it has existed for an eternity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
When your pastor tells you that there is a God, I am glad to know that you will now be agreeing that he knows a heck of a lot more about this than you, so you will take his word for it. How can someone be an expert on something that doesn't exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6411 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Bolder-dash writes:
However, what you actually said to cavediver in Message 56 was:
Well, let's see, I wrote that a theoretical physicist has no more intrinsic ability to look at the world around them, see the order, imagine what is chaos, and draw conclusions about the unseen. Bolder-dash writes:
That bears little resemblance to what you now claim that you said.You are sitting in a room, on a place in the earth, the same as everyone else is, pondering what you think seems to be true. You can think about what you feels makes up the universe, and what you feel is reality, but it is no more valid, and carries no more weight than what anyone else thinks. The earlier statement (from Message 56) was an assertion about validity. Your newer claim is that it was an assertion about intrinsic ability. If you cannot even correctly describe what you yourself said in an earlier post, then it is hard to see why anybody should ever pay attention to anything you say. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024