So here Hawkins main idea of his New book "Grand design"

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by TheBigPayback, Feb 2, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Gravity created us.
    Posted via mobile device... from my mobile home.
    test
  2. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    once again scientists are demonized by the religious for trying to tackle life's hardest questions through scientific inquiry rather than worship.

    test
  3. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    I have the book.
    test
  4. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Demonized? Its a scientist making philisophical conclusions.
    Posted via mobile device... from my mobile home.
    test
  5. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Also he makes assumptions under the general idea God doesnt exist. Shouldnt ALL posobilities be considered when attempting to cinclude something like the existance and creation of life?
    Posted via mobile device... from my mobile home.
    test
  6. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    i havent read the book, but i dont think he makes any absolute statements about the nonexistence of god. only he doesn't factor in the possibility of god since theres really no way to even 'define god' in a scientific sense. he's a physicist, not a philosopher. i'm not sure though. i haven't read the book, only the first few pages. it seems interesting though.

    and aren't you one of the people who is always complaining that scientists can't explain how something could come from nothing without the help of a creator? this book attempts to explain just that.
    test
  7. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    Here's the first mention of a god:

    Page 8-9

    "We will describe how M-theory may offer answers to the question of creation. According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of a supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law."
    test
  8. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    No, I'm pretty sure he makes assumptions using our knowledge of what does exist. We don't know God exists, it's not a given. I haven't actually read the book beyond the first chapter, but I'll go through what I can of it tonight.

    Should all possibilities be considered? Have YOU ever considered the possibility of M-theory? This book presents it to you. I'm sure most people already have considered the possibility of God in their life time.
    test
  9. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    Where is it again, that part in the Bible that says it's possible God does not exist? Shouldn't ALL possibilities be considered and explored? Not too much alternative consideration in the Bible. No explanation as to why M-theory couldn't be true in the Bible.
    test
  10. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    Luk 11:44 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them.

    Luk 12:56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?

    ---

    So if we were to apply these passages to this day... who are the scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! of 2011?

    God as a grave which appears not, and the men that walk over it are not aware of it?

    Believers who discern the existence of a heaven and hell, and a divine creator; but how is it that they cannot discern this time?
    test
  11. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Thats a joke right.
    Posted via mobile device... from my mobile home.
    test
  12. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    test
  13. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Mo- the bible doesnt need to assume all ideas before coming to a conlusion. Its history, whereas science on the other had SHOULD take all possibilities as relevant when trying to figure how something that already exists and why. Im sure u can agree with that.
    test
  14. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    science looks for the model that makes the most accurate predictions and matches up the best with available data. it doesn't require that the scientists take time to consider the possibility of each and every philosophical viewpoint.

    if you read the book, you'll see he does start out with a lot of talk of gods and goddesses, ancient myths and whatnot just to set up the scene for the emergence of scientific knowledge and how that became the new method for trying to understand our universe.

    he explains how society was reluctant to accept the idea of a universe governed by natural laws rather than the whims of the gods. it wasn't until newton & co definitively proved that this was the case that people actually warmed up to the idea, and even then it was only under the condition that god was said to have created the initial laws of the universe.

    god by definition can not interfere with the laws once they were in place, because that would allow for exceptions to the 'law' being explained as 'god did it' and hence invalidate it as a law. it is essential that you understand this. scientists operate based on the assumption that there is no interference with the natural laws by a supernatural being. without this distinction, the model wouldn't work. what's lucky for them is, this assumption seems to be correct. and as such, the model is very reliable. if god does exist then he doesn't seem to interfere with the natural laws, and as such, the field of physics has no need (or even ability) to incorporate 'god' into their equations. it is simply not necessary.

    now you may ask, but what if they're wrong? well, hawking also explains that science is based on model-dependent realism. that they accept that the models are based entirely on human perception which has proven to be wrong in the past, and so they are judged not by how true they seem but the predictions they make. they assume for the sake of sanity that the model the science is based on (i.e. our perception of reality) is valid and that the scientific models used to explain the mechanisms of the universe (i.e. scientific theories and laws) are valid as long as they make reliable predictions. and if they're proven wrong later by a new and better theory then they make the necessary adaptions, even if it means scrapping the old model altogether.

    with that said, i don't think he's on a personal vendetta to destroy your religion. he's simply chasing after the same thing he's been after since the 70's: the ultimate theory to 'explain it all.' this is something he's making his desperate last scratches at as his condition continues to worsen. i wouldn't feel too threatened by stephen hawking if i were you. i don't honestly know how much longer he can even last.

    but you have to know that this process, the scientific process of exploring and explaining the universe is never going to stop. and most likely, its going to continue to try to answer questions that you previously thought were down to god.
    test
  15. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    Reggie has a better handle on how to respond to you directly without latching onto where you go wrong so he can try to beat you into the ground with it like I would.

    The next time you shouldn't be so sure that I can agree with you.

    I think the original way you questioned whether we should take all possibilities as relevant in contemplating why we exist and how we came to be is a completely valid question but not the way you bring it up here.

    But because we are talking about a book, I think it's entirely up to the reader. It's up to anyone who is interested in gaining understanding about our existence. The intention of the book to present the most recent scientific thinking using nontechnical language that is easy to read. The fact that some religious people may seem to pay more attention to science than Hawking pays to to religion shouldn't take away from the merit of what he has to say. He and his co-author are both qualified physicists. He's giving his expertise on the subject from using his scientific grasp of why we exist and how we came to be. He's adding to the tremendous conversation that has been wide open for a long time.
    test
  16. Thrizzy

    Thrizzy 3.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,443
    I believe him yo...I don't know why but I do :funny:
    test
  17. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Well it did give refferances to peoples idols and other gods.but in general science is about discovery the bible isnt about finding out. Its about telling u what it is
    test
  18. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    this is just a wild idea, don't take it the wrong way

    it concerns bigpayback's request that scientists give god a fair inquiry. this is of course, quite hard to do. in fact, it might be just about as impossible as the nature of god itself. how can they account for something they can't identify, can't define, something that has no apparent influence on the laws that govern our universe, and do so in complex mathematical equations?

    i'm thinking this is the perfect job for 'creation scientists.' these are a group of people who essentially point at scientific wonders and say, "look at that. isn't that impressive? GOD made that!"

    instead of always focusing on god of gaps arguments, trying to debunk theories like evolution or even basic facts like the age of the earth and the universe... why not bunker down and figure out the hard math to the Lord. then they can take that and show that sinner hawking what's what.
    test
  19. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Well see the uncover things but god is completely left out of the equation an rather some other natural explination is attributed
    test
  20. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    pretty sure harold camping already did the math to know that the rapture is happening on may 21st and the world will end in october of this year. i don't have access to his math, but it beyond doubt that the rapture happens on may 21st. he fixed the mathematical error he had made in 1994.

    what don't you understand?
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)