• In total there are 13 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 12 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 1834 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 4:11 am
  • Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests
Collapse view
Board index Men Beneath the Ruins

Men Beneath the Ruins

Hawking: No God

Newslinks and Discussion
Forum rules
It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.

:judy:

Hawking: No God

Postby [FLAVOR SHOCKWAVE] » Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:55 am

LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Hawking, 68, who won global recognition with his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time," an account of the origins of the universe, is renowned for his work on black holes, cosmology and quantum gravity.

Since 1974, the scientist has worked on marrying the two cornerstones of modern physics -- Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which concerns gravity and large-scale phenomena, and quantum theory, which covers subatomic particles.

His latest comments suggest he has broken away from previous views he has expressed on religion. Previously, he wrote that the laws of physics meant it was simply not necessary to believe that God had intervened in the Big Bang.

He wrote in A Brief History ... "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."

In his latest book, he said the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting another star other than the Sun helped deconstruct the view of the father of physics Isaac Newton that the universe could not have arisen out of chaos but was created by God.

"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.

Hawking, who is only able to speak through a computer-generated voice synthesizer, has a neuro muscular dystrophy that has progressed over the years and left him almost completely paralyzed.

He began suffering the disease in his early 20s but went on to establish himself as one of the world's leading scientific authorities, and has also made guest appearances in "Star Trek" and the cartoons "Futurama" and "The Simpsons."

Last year he announced he was stepping down as Cambridge University's Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, a position once held by Newton and one he had held since 1979.

"The Grand Design" is due to go on sale next week.


Hawking writes the God Delusion part II are goons creaming themselves yet?

can't say I'm terribly surprised by this though, it was only a matter of time

it seems like all theoretical physicists care about now is trying to disprove the existence of God which I don't really get

I guess what I can't get past is if the conditions to create the universe existed for an infinitely long period of time before the universe began then why does the universe have a finite age or how something could ever come from true nothingness in that even the "law of gravity" counts as something, but I'm not a physicist, so whatever and I'm sure he'd have an answer for that anyways
Last edited by [FLAVOR SHOCKWAVE] on Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
[FLAVOR SHOCKWAVE]
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:40 pm
Cash on hand: 789.42

Friends of the Atom (1) SASS Veteran (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby veteran of forum wars » Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:56 am

Can you really blame the guy?
Image
User avatar
veteran of forum wars
Look at the jibberish from this test subject...
Alconauts
 
Posts: 6893
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:08 am
Cash on hand: 8,001.80
Bank: 5,794.00

Capitalist (1) SMYD Veteran (1) Seanbaby Veteran (1) ThePhora Veteran (1)
4chan Veteran (1) SA Veteran (1) My Posting Career Veteran (1) Ebay Veteran (1)
SASS Veteran (1) TNE 2009 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby [FLAVOR SHOCKWAVE] » Fri Sep 03, 2010 5:03 am

well not really, and I've always liked hawking but at the same time I think his views are probably given extra weight simply because of his condition and I'd be curious to hear an educated take on the other side of the issue if there are any physicists that actually do believe in God

at the same time I can't figure out why anyone would write an entire book dedicated to attacking someone else's personal beliefs it strikes me as a dick move no matter who's doing it
Image
User avatar
[FLAVOR SHOCKWAVE]
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:40 pm
Cash on hand: 789.42

Friends of the Atom (1) SASS Veteran (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby afrika obamaataa » Fri Sep 03, 2010 5:18 am

Yes, wheels mcperg has solved the universe. Fucking mad hubris. I am cripple; therefore I am.

This explains some facebook updates.


"that yo steven!!!" I thought he'd died ol horny ol computer talker
fucker
User avatar
afrika obamaataa
Beached AZ
Beached AZ
 
Posts: 8325
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:27 am
Cash on hand: 2,071.00
Bank: 19,412.58

British (1) Irish (1) Canadian (1) French (1)
Ingsoc (1) Irish Catholic (1) Posting Drunk (1) Shitposter (1)
Hulk (1) SASS Veteran (1) TNE 2009 (1) TNE 2010 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby Captain Walker » Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:07 am

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.


"That's stupid," writes Hangly.

There's no law of gravity without the universe, dumbfuck. Why does it sound like you're saying one of them preexists the other?

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."


You say you can't see a reason why it's necessary? I guess that's fine but it's not an argument. The first causes problem has persisted for thousands of years and you have contributed nothing to the discussion. Shame on your for wasting all those trees.

What keeps giving scientists the idea that they should write these embarrassing books about philosophy? Did they see Scott Adams's sad attempts and say "why not me too?" Go bonk some molecules together and leave the higher thinking to the big boys.
Image
User avatar
Captain Walker
50,000 Watts of Power
Oprichniki
 
Posts: 40194
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:23 am
Cash on hand: 104,695.66
Bank: 49,156.75

Dutch (1) Irish (1) Orthodox (1) Runner (1)
Boy Scout (1) Eagle Scout (1) TNE 2010 (1) TNE 2011 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby George 'Hannibal' Peppard » Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:23 am

[FLAVOR SHOCKWAVE] wrote:I guess what I can't get past is if the conditions to create the universe existed for an infinitely long period of time before the universe began then why does the universe have a finite age or how something could ever come from true nothingness in that even the "law of gravity" counts as something, but I'm not a physicist, so whatever and I'm sure he'd have an answer for that anyways


i dunno if it's even still a valid theory but some physicists believed that the universe goes into a cycle where the big bang distributes all the mass in an explosion, then over incalculable amounts of time once that's finished gravity slowly brings everything back together and everything repeats

the thing i don't understand is why every 4-5 years some superparticle is shown to have a new x behavior so all the theories get set back on their ears, yet there are probably a dozen superparticles that are still theoretical and faggots still make outlandish claims based off what we "know" and why this is The Most Valid Theory Ever (For Now). in other words they're smart enough to calculate quantum behaviors 99.9% of us will never understand yet mentally immature enough not to be able to predict that things change
George 'Hannibal' Peppard
 
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby coon mover » Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:07 am

George 'Hannibal' Peppard wrote:
[FLAVOR SHOCKWAVE] wrote:I guess what I can't get past is if the conditions to create the universe existed for an infinitely long period of time before the universe began then why does the universe have a finite age or how something could ever come from true nothingness in that even the "law of gravity" counts as something, but I'm not a physicist, so whatever and I'm sure he'd have an answer for that anyways


the thing i don't understand is why every 4-5 years some superparticle is shown to have a new x behavior so all the theories get set back on their ears, yet there are probably a dozen superparticles that are still theoretical and faggots still make outlandish claims based off what we "know" and why this is The Most Valid Theory Ever (For Now). in other words they're smart enough to calculate quantum behaviors 99.9% of us will never understand yet mentally immature enough not to be able to predict that things change


I think the majority of this is fishing for funding/and or the scientific equivalent of "LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME".
Image
User avatar
coon mover
The Knights of the Penultimate Order of the Holy Mangosteen
The Knights of the Penultimate Order of the Holy Mangosteen
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:33 pm
Cash on hand: 1,018.04

Australian (1) Gun Owner (1) Purple Heart (1) Chimpout Veteran (1)
SA Veteran (1) SASS Veteran (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby Spazzard » Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:29 pm

veteran of forum wars wrote:Can you really blame the guy?


You stole my reply.
User avatar
Spazzard
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:25 am
Cash on hand: -106.45

Roman Catholic (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby veteran of forum wars » Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:32 pm

Spazzard wrote:
veteran of forum wars wrote:Can you really blame the guy?


You stole my reply.

There must be no God at all :smug:
Image
User avatar
veteran of forum wars
Look at the jibberish from this test subject...
Alconauts
 
Posts: 6893
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:08 am
Cash on hand: 8,001.80
Bank: 5,794.00

Capitalist (1) SMYD Veteran (1) Seanbaby Veteran (1) ThePhora Veteran (1)
4chan Veteran (1) SA Veteran (1) My Posting Career Veteran (1) Ebay Veteran (1)
SASS Veteran (1) TNE 2009 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby PPC » Fri Sep 03, 2010 2:17 pm

NO GOD
NO STAIRS
PPC
 
Cash on hand: Locked
Bank: Locked

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby Procrustes » Fri Sep 03, 2010 2:43 pm

All physicists and astronomres are faggots, hth.

oh look at me i have a new theory about the higgs mesoboson pls let me build a trillion dollar particle accelerator that gets shut down by a baguette

:say:
Image


PS check this out: That fog-nigger jewspaper just might be taking some quotes out of context...I found this after a little googling. It's a portion of the paragraph preceeding the "gravity created the universe etc" quote posted above:

"Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes."


I think he's talking about cosmology rather than theology, but don't let any sort of context or understanding of what Hawking says or has said in the past get in the way of those jerking knees.
Image
User avatar
Procrustes
Friends (13)
Waffen SS Panzer Division
 
Posts: 9344
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:43 pm
Cash on hand: 2,014.00
Bank: 31,586.51

Texan (1) Mexican (1) Gun Owner (1) Friends of the Atom (1)
Survivalist (1) Landowner (1) Roman Catholic (1) Mobile Infantry (1)
Posting Drunk (1) Ambien (1) Runner (1) Whaler (1)
Mr. Yuck (1) SASS Veteran (1) TNE 2009 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby veteran of forum wars » Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:31 pm

Mister Han Man wrote:Go bonk some molecules together and leave the higher thinking to the big boys.


In your head, you just refuted Hawking's life's work, didn't you? :lol: :smug:
Image
User avatar
veteran of forum wars
Look at the jibberish from this test subject...
Alconauts
 
Posts: 6893
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:08 am
Cash on hand: 8,001.80
Bank: 5,794.00

Capitalist (1) SMYD Veteran (1) Seanbaby Veteran (1) ThePhora Veteran (1)
4chan Veteran (1) SA Veteran (1) My Posting Career Veteran (1) Ebay Veteran (1)
SASS Veteran (1) TNE 2009 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby polonium » Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:32 pm

I think it's more likely that the quotes are taken out of context and misrepresent his opinion, rather than hawking has completely shat his pot.

The whole thing with the fringes of physics is: You can just say any crazy shit and it might be true. The last interesting thing I'd read was trying to explain why gravity is such a weak force when compared to other forces like electromagnetism. It was almost like it was being distributed through much much more space than the others, which would sort of lend credence to the wilder theories that suggest there's a lot going on that we can't see or experience with current levels of knowledge.
Image
User avatar
polonium
regressive
Space Racists
 
Posts: 5635
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:54 am
Location: Moonbase Alpha
Cash on hand: 9,888.00
Bank: 8,966.03

British (1) Capitalist (1) Anti-Communist (1) Agnostic (1)
Runner (1) Gourmet (1) TNE 2009 (1) TNE 2010 (1)
TNE 2011 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby Rocket » Fri Sep 03, 2010 5:43 pm

stupid catchphrase wrote:
polonium wrote:I think it's more likely that the quotes are taken out of context and misrepresent his opinion, rather than hawking has completely shat his pot.

The whole thing with the fringes of physics is: You can just say any crazy shit and it might be true. The last interesting thing I'd read was trying to explain why gravity is such a weak force when compared to other forces like electromagnetism. It was almost like it was being distributed through much much more space than the others, which would sort of lend credence to the wilder theories that suggest there's a lot going on that we can't see or experience with current levels of knowledge.


Strong force - the best force.

That's your racisty way of saying white force. We know what you are you loving bigot! :ultimatelibrage:

And I came here to say that you'd hope there was no God if you were eaten alive by ALS so badly that Lou Gherrig's corpse could kick your ass, but the filthy douchebag VFW beat me to the punch.
Yes, that is me on my Rocket Cycle with my enormous penis.
User avatar
Rocket
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:41 am
Cash on hand: 5,023.00
Bank: 0.00

Gun Owner (1) Landowner (1) Rebel (1) Libertarian (1)
Runner (1) Musician (1) Mental Powers (1) Motorcycle (1)
Marksman (1) SA Veteran (1) SASS Veteran (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby birdfucker.mp3 » Fri Sep 03, 2010 7:33 pm

Mister Han Man wrote:
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."


You say you can't see a reason why it's necessary? I guess that's fine but it's not an argument.


To a scientist, it is a very strong argument. "There's no need for this idea to exist" is probably the strongest argument one can make when dealing with unobservable (i.e., impossible to experiment) phenomena.

The default conclusion in science is minimal. We start with nothing, and then add things that can be experimentally verified. Only if an event cannot be explained by verified laws do scientists start creating new ideas to add to the model.
In this case, Hawking argues that the Big Bang can be explained satisfactorily by a verifiable law (gravity), so there's no need to add new ideas (God).

Not saying I agree with it, but it's a rather straightforward scientific approach. He's not delving into theology or philosophy.
ImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
birdfucker.mp3
 
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Cash on hand: 1,168.04
Bank: 30,473.91

American (1) Ukranian (1) Pennsylvanian (1) Computer Expert (1)
Gourmet (1) SASS Veteran (1) TNE 2009 (1) TNE 2010 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby Captain Walker » Fri Sep 03, 2010 8:58 pm

stupid catchphrase wrote:This is no longer valid as the Universe's expansion rate is accelerating, not decelerating (which is required for this to happen).


No heat-death. No entropy. This shit blows my mind.
Image
User avatar
Captain Walker
50,000 Watts of Power
Oprichniki
 
Posts: 40194
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:23 am
Cash on hand: 104,695.66
Bank: 49,156.75

Dutch (1) Irish (1) Orthodox (1) Runner (1)
Boy Scout (1) Eagle Scout (1) TNE 2010 (1) TNE 2011 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby Captain Walker » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:01 pm

veteran of forum wars wrote:
Mister Han Man wrote:Go bonk some molecules together and leave the higher thinking to the big boys.


In your head, you just refuted Hawking's life's work, didn't you? :lol: :smug:


No I think untestable speculation about what happens in black holes is of immeasurable value. I think we should make him president. Or at least name some form of imaginary radiation after him.
Image
User avatar
Captain Walker
50,000 Watts of Power
Oprichniki
 
Posts: 40194
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:23 am
Cash on hand: 104,695.66
Bank: 49,156.75

Dutch (1) Irish (1) Orthodox (1) Runner (1)
Boy Scout (1) Eagle Scout (1) TNE 2010 (1) TNE 2011 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby Captain Walker » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:19 pm

birdfucker.mp3 wrote:
Mister Han Man wrote:
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."


You say you can't see a reason why it's necessary? I guess that's fine but it's not an argument.


To a scientist, it is a very strong argument. "There's no need for this idea to exist" is probably the strongest argument one can make when dealing with unobservable (i.e., impossible to experiment) phenomena.
The default conclusion in science is minimal. We start with nothing, and then add things that can be experimentally verified. Only if an event cannot be explained by verified laws do scientists start creating new ideas to add to the model.
In this case, Hawking argues that the Big Bang can be explained satisfactorily by a verifiable law (gravity), so there's no need to add new ideas (God).

Not saying I agree with it, but it's a rather straightforward scientific approach. He's not delving into theology or philosophy.


It is a very straightforward scientific approach. It's the approach that led the greatest minds of the 20th century to declare that human beings had half a dozen useless organs and did not use 90% of their brains, based solely on the fact that they could not figure out what these things were for. Later they did figure out what they were for, but not before an entire generation of children had its tonsils removed.

This is what happens when science is your only philosophy. Considering something unknown or untestable to be for all intents and purposes untrue until proven otherwise through experimentation is a good process to follow if you are a scientist. Let's stick to what we know, it prevents error. If you think your process reflects reality, however, then you've kind of fallen off the back of the cart sanity wise.

Science is not equipped to handle fuzzy questions like this. This is the domain of philosophy. Watching scientists try to do philosophy is like watching my two-year-old try to dress himself.
Image
User avatar
Captain Walker
50,000 Watts of Power
Oprichniki
 
Posts: 40194
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:23 am
Cash on hand: 104,695.66
Bank: 49,156.75

Dutch (1) Irish (1) Orthodox (1) Runner (1)
Boy Scout (1) Eagle Scout (1) TNE 2010 (1) TNE 2011 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby birdfucker.mp3 » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:52 pm

Mister Han Man wrote:
stupid catchphrase wrote:This is no longer valid as the Universe's expansion rate is accelerating, not decelerating (which is required for this to happen).


No heat-death. No entropy. This shit blows my mind.


Yes, there's still heat death and entropy even though the universe is expanding.
ImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
birdfucker.mp3
 
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Cash on hand: 1,168.04
Bank: 30,473.91

American (1) Ukranian (1) Pennsylvanian (1) Computer Expert (1)
Gourmet (1) SASS Veteran (1) TNE 2009 (1) TNE 2010 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby Captain Walker » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:55 pm

birdfucker.mp3 wrote:
Mister Han Man wrote:
stupid catchphrase wrote:This is no longer valid as the Universe's expansion rate is accelerating, not decelerating (which is required for this to happen).


No heat-death. No entropy. This shit blows my mind.


Yes, there's still heat death and entropy even though the universe is expanding.


Accelerating.

Am I mistaken or does that not imply an increase in total energy?
Image
User avatar
Captain Walker
50,000 Watts of Power
Oprichniki
 
Posts: 40194
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:23 am
Cash on hand: 104,695.66
Bank: 49,156.75

Dutch (1) Irish (1) Orthodox (1) Runner (1)
Boy Scout (1) Eagle Scout (1) TNE 2010 (1) TNE 2011 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby birdfucker.mp3 » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:55 pm

Mister Han Man wrote:
birdfucker.mp3 wrote:
Mister Han Man wrote:
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."


You say you can't see a reason why it's necessary? I guess that's fine but it's not an argument.


To a scientist, it is a very strong argument. "There's no need for this idea to exist" is probably the strongest argument one can make when dealing with unobservable (i.e., impossible to experiment) phenomena.
The default conclusion in science is minimal. We start with nothing, and then add things that can be experimentally verified. Only if an event cannot be explained by verified laws do scientists start creating new ideas to add to the model.
In this case, Hawking argues that the Big Bang can be explained satisfactorily by a verifiable law (gravity), so there's no need to add new ideas (God).

Not saying I agree with it, but it's a rather straightforward scientific approach. He's not delving into theology or philosophy.


It is a very straightforward scientific approach. It's the approach that led the greatest minds of the 20th century to declare that human beings had half a dozen useless organs and did not use 90% of their brains, based solely on the fact that they could not figure out what these things were for. Later they did figure out what they were for, but not before an entire generation of children had its tonsils removed.

This is what happens when science is your only philosophy. Considering something unknown or untestable to be for all intents and purposes untrue until proven otherwise through experimentation is a good process to follow if you are a scientist. Let's stick to what we know, it prevents error. If you think your process reflects reality, however, then you've kind of fallen off the back of the cart sanity wise.

Science is not equipped to handle fuzzy questions like this. This is the domain of philosophy. Watching scientists try to do philosophy is like watching my two-year-old try to dress himself.


Perhaps I was unclear. I was only talking about purely theoretical science, where observation and experimentation are impossible, and I was only talking about forming models.
Medicine is obviously a practical science, where effects can be directly observed and measured and hypotheses can be tested.
ImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
birdfucker.mp3
 
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Cash on hand: 1,168.04
Bank: 30,473.91

American (1) Ukranian (1) Pennsylvanian (1) Computer Expert (1)
Gourmet (1) SASS Veteran (1) TNE 2009 (1) TNE 2010 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby birdfucker.mp3 » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:56 pm

Mister Han Man wrote:
birdfucker.mp3 wrote:
Mister Han Man wrote:
stupid catchphrase wrote:This is no longer valid as the Universe's expansion rate is accelerating, not decelerating (which is required for this to happen).


No heat-death. No entropy. This shit blows my mind.


Yes, there's still heat death and entropy even though the universe is expanding.


Accelerating.

Am I mistaken or does that not imply an increase in total energy?


You're mistaken, but I don't have time to go into it now. I'll be back later tonight.

Edit: short answer: it's not that objects are picking up speed. the universe is expanding because space itself is growing.
ImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
birdfucker.mp3
 
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Cash on hand: 1,168.04
Bank: 30,473.91

American (1) Ukranian (1) Pennsylvanian (1) Computer Expert (1)
Gourmet (1) SASS Veteran (1) TNE 2009 (1) TNE 2010 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby Captain Walker » Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:01 pm

birdfucker.mp3 wrote:Perhaps I was unclear. I was only talking about purely theoretical science, where observation and experimentation are impossible, and I was only talking about forming models.
Medicine is obviously a practical science, where effects can be directly observed and measured and hypotheses can be tested.


Trying to base a complete model on incomplete data is kind of... not smart.

There are disciplines that are able to work with incomplete data without coming to ludicrous conclusions. Physics is not one of them.
Image
User avatar
Captain Walker
50,000 Watts of Power
Oprichniki
 
Posts: 40194
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:23 am
Cash on hand: 104,695.66
Bank: 49,156.75

Dutch (1) Irish (1) Orthodox (1) Runner (1)
Boy Scout (1) Eagle Scout (1) TNE 2010 (1) TNE 2011 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby Captain Walker » Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:02 pm

birdfucker.mp3 wrote:
Mister Han Man wrote:
birdfucker.mp3 wrote:
Mister Han Man wrote:
stupid catchphrase wrote:This is no longer valid as the Universe's expansion rate is accelerating, not decelerating (which is required for this to happen).


No heat-death. No entropy. This shit blows my mind.


Yes, there's still heat death and entropy even though the universe is expanding.


Accelerating.

Am I mistaken or does that not imply an increase in total energy?


You're mistaken, but I don't have time to go into it now. I'll be back later tonight.

Edit: short answer: it's not that objects are picking up speed. the universe is expanding because space itself is growing.


I think you're trying to explain the expanding universe as we understood it 10 years ago. Also you're confused. Expanding space explains why everything appears red-shifted. That has nothing to do with acceleration.

SC is talking about something else. Something new.
Image
User avatar
Captain Walker
50,000 Watts of Power
Oprichniki
 
Posts: 40194
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:23 am
Cash on hand: 104,695.66
Bank: 49,156.75

Dutch (1) Irish (1) Orthodox (1) Runner (1)
Boy Scout (1) Eagle Scout (1) TNE 2010 (1) TNE 2011 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby RoseTintedGlasses » Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:36 pm

If he's so smart how come he cant walk?
User avatar
RoseTintedGlasses
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:52 pm
Cash on hand: 8,177.79

American (1) Croatian (1) Republican (1) Roman Catholic (1)
Runner (1) Purple Heart (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby woulduliketonomoar » Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:25 am

[FLAVOR SHOCKWAVE] wrote:Hawking writes the God Delusion part II are goons creaming themselves yet?

can't say I'm terribly surprised by this though, it was only a matter of time

it seems like all theoretical physicists care about now is trying to disprove the existence of God which I don't really get

I guess what I can't get past is if the conditions to create the universe existed for an infinitely long period of time before the universe began then why does the universe have a finite age or how something could ever come from true nothingness in that even the "law of gravity" counts as something, but I'm not a physicist, so whatever and I'm sure he'd have an answer for that anyways

Quite a few physicists have said our inability to understand the origins of the universe, the question of what existed/caused the Big Bang leaves massive wiggle room for the possibility of God existing. Science Channel just had a series "Through the Wormhole" where they spent an episode covering the nature of the universe before the Big Bang and what could have caused it to come into existence. From what I remember there were a number of physicists talking about how anyone pretending to be able to conclude that there is no possibility of the existence of a god is full of shit since once you approach a certain point in the mathematical models even the math breaks down and we cannot possibly understand anything "before" the big bang and that those who purport to have found a proof that God cannot possibly exist are only fooling themselves and pandering to their "constituency" if you will.
User avatar
woulduliketonomoar
Space Racists
Space Racists
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:07 pm
Cash on hand: 4,005.00
Bank: 7,586.46

Lutheran (1) Mobile Infantry (1) TNE 2010 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby Captain Walker » Sat Sep 04, 2010 1:01 am

woulduliketonomoar wrote:
[FLAVOR SHOCKWAVE] wrote:Hawking writes the God Delusion part II are goons creaming themselves yet?

can't say I'm terribly surprised by this though, it was only a matter of time

it seems like all theoretical physicists care about now is trying to disprove the existence of God which I don't really get

I guess what I can't get past is if the conditions to create the universe existed for an infinitely long period of time before the universe began then why does the universe have a finite age or how something could ever come from true nothingness in that even the "law of gravity" counts as something, but I'm not a physicist, so whatever and I'm sure he'd have an answer for that anyways

Quite a few physicists have said our inability to understand the origins of the universe, the question of what existed/caused the Big Bang leaves massive wiggle room for the possibility of God existing. Science Channel just had a series "Through the Wormhole" where they spent an episode covering the nature of the universe before the Big Bang and what could have caused it to come into existence. From what I remember there were a number of physicists talking about how anyone pretending to be able to conclude that there is no possibility of the existence of a god is full of shit since once you approach a certain point in the mathematical models even the math breaks down and we cannot possibly understand anything "before" the big bang and that those who purport to have found a proof that God cannot possibly exist are only fooling themselves and pandering to their "constituency" if you will.


A scientist will always respond that this is fuzzy thinking, and that logically absence of proof is proof of absence.

Of course that isn't logical at all. There are a great many perfectly logical reasons why a prime mover not only can exist but must exist, but the scientist will always get hung up on the apparent absence of empirical evidence.

The really funny thing is now that there is some very good empirical evidence that the scientific explanation of the origins of life is very flawed the response against it is universally emotional, never rational.

Also it absolutely floors me that creation itself is never acceptable proof of the existence of a creator. It's like the natural world they study just doesn't impress them in the slightest. "oh that, that's just [blah blah blah insert technical term here] it's no big deal." Every natural phenomenon has to be no big deal. If they acknowledged it was incredibly motherfucking amazing it would cast doubt on their claims that it just kinda fell together.
Image
User avatar
Captain Walker
50,000 Watts of Power
Oprichniki
 
Posts: 40194
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:23 am
Cash on hand: 104,695.66
Bank: 49,156.75

Dutch (1) Irish (1) Orthodox (1) Runner (1)
Boy Scout (1) Eagle Scout (1) TNE 2010 (1) TNE 2011 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby birdfucker.mp3 » Sat Sep 04, 2010 1:42 am

Mister Han Man wrote:
birdfucker.mp3 wrote:
Mister Han Man wrote:
birdfucker.mp3 wrote:
Mister Han Man wrote:
stupid catchphrase wrote:This is no longer valid as the Universe's expansion rate is accelerating, not decelerating (which is required for this to happen).


No heat-death. No entropy. This shit blows my mind.


Yes, there's still heat death and entropy even though the universe is expanding.


Accelerating.

Am I mistaken or does that not imply an increase in total energy?


You're mistaken, but I don't have time to go into it now. I'll be back later tonight.

Edit: short answer: it's not that objects are picking up speed. the universe is expanding because space itself is growing.


I think you're trying to explain the expanding universe as we understood it 10 years ago. Also you're confused. Expanding space explains why everything appears red-shifted. That has nothing to do with acceleration.

SC is talking about something else. Something new.


Okay, I was slightly off, but I was close. The cause of the expanding universe is still unknown.

But my assertion of upcoming heat death is correct. Stars have limited lifetimes. Eventually, they will all run out of fuel, and become balls of heavy elements. When the residual heat of these objects radiates away, there will only be two ways to create heat: sometimes two large objects will merge and have enough mass to re-ignite fusion, and sometimes a black hole will suck down some matter and create a glowing accretion disk.
But even longer after that, the only thing left will be black holes, and the universe will be cold and dark. We're talking around 10^40 years, so proton decay will actually be an appreciable factor.
And we know that black holes evaporate. (In fact, it was Steven Hawking who came up with this). Some time around 10^92 years, the last of the black holes will evaporate. The only things left in the universe will be a few electrons, photons, and some other exotic particles. And then we will have reached heat death.

Edit: Oh, and the "something new" you're talking about was discovered in 1998: http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998AJ....116.1009R
ImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
birdfucker.mp3
 
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Cash on hand: 1,168.04
Bank: 30,473.91

American (1) Ukranian (1) Pennsylvanian (1) Computer Expert (1)
Gourmet (1) SASS Veteran (1) TNE 2009 (1) TNE 2010 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby woulduliketonomoar » Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:31 am

Mister Han Man wrote:The really funny thing is now that there is some very good empirical evidence that the scientific explanation of the origins of life is very flawed the response against it is universally emotional, never rational.

Also it absolutely floors me that creation itself is never acceptable proof of the existence of a creator. It's like the natural world they study just doesn't impress them in the slightest. "oh that, that's just [blah blah blah insert technical term here] it's no big deal." Every natural phenomenon has to be no big deal. If they acknowledged it was incredibly motherfucking amazing it would cast doubt on their claims that it just kinda fell together.

This is the sticking point that gets libs/atheists panties in a bunch.

There is a total disconnect in their minds between a person (a scientist even) being able to say that processes XYZ led to outcomes ABC, particularly regarding the evolution of life and that person still believing that at some point in time some "thing" (i.e. God) set that process in motion.

To be quite honest, when I reexamine my views regarding my faith and sometimes teeter on the point of agnosticism, what I've continually come back to as far as my core belief regarding God and the existence of man (and... well... everything) is that at some point in time (or even before time - the Big Bang) God set in motion an experiment. I don't believe he's had his fingers in the punch-bowl and been fucking with his playdough "create-a-species" playset, but he did set certain things in motion just for shits and giggles to see what will happen.

That is also something else that goony fucks can't wrap their heads around. They cannot fathom how a person who professes they are of X faith can reexamine their beliefs/faith throughout their lifetimes. Its completely binary to them. You're either a mindless chucklefuck who swallows every bit of the tenets of your faith or you are an atheist. If you say that you do indeed reexamine your faith from time to time, they call it hypocrisy particularly if you reject certain things.

If you talk candidly to some of the most devout members of any faith such as priests, ministers, monks, nuns, and especially Jesuits they'll admit that their faith/belief is under constant reexamination by themselves, that they struggle with it on a regular basis, and that part of being a person with a deep religious faith is reexamination of one's own beliefs. The only religious people that really buy into the "You cannot ever question" line of thinking are those of the more nutty fundamentalist denominations.

Shit look at the poster child of what goons consider a "good" religion: Islam. Its under constant reexamination and reinterpretation by the entire spectrum of Muslims (from the hardcore fundamentalist types to the most liberal of Muslims).
User avatar
woulduliketonomoar
Space Racists
Space Racists
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:07 pm
Cash on hand: 4,005.00
Bank: 7,586.46

Lutheran (1) Mobile Infantry (1) TNE 2010 (1)

Re: Hawking: No God

Postby Louise Beaver 2020 » Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:33 am

birdfucker.mp3 wrote:The only things left in the universe will be a few electrons, photons, and some other exotic particles. And then we will have reached heat death.


After long last and finally, all will be faggot.
Image

What would make a person riot? If it isn't for social issues then I clearly have spent alot time in University wrong.

Image ImageImage
User avatar
Louise Beaver 2020
Imperial Stormtooter
BIG CARL
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:46 am
Location: The Antipodian Ayn Rand Museum and Tea room
Cash on hand: 21,488.45

Australian (1) Capitalist (1) Objectivist (1) McCarthyist (1)
Anti-Communist (1) Posting Drunk (1) Runner (1) 4chan Veteran (1)

Next

Return to Men Beneath the Ruins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests

In total there are 13 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 12 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1834 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 4:11 am

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests