So what he is really saying is that the Universe had a beginning, and the Universe itself is that which made itself begin?

The universe existed before it existed in order to create itself?

Interesting.

The M-Theory is far from something comprehensive, and has many flaws attached to it. It also shows no necessity for itself. Why must there be only strictly 11 dimensions? Why not more, why not less?

Here is an interesting article on such:

William Lane Craig questions and answers

Question:

Dear Dr. Craig,

I had a question about the argument from fine-tuning, specifically regarding the values of certain constants. I'm in the middle of an undergrad program in Physics, and so I'm familiar with many fundamental constants of the universe, but not exactly with the extent of their ‘tuning.'

My question is, how is it possible to calculate the probability of a constant being such that it leads to a life-supporting universe?

For example, let's say that we have constants A, B, and C. Let's say that in order for a life supporting universe to result, A must equal 4, B = 6, and C = 2. It would seem to me that we could calculate the probability of A being four if we knew that A had to be a number between 1 and 10. But if A must be between 1 and 10 (lets call this range R), then that range itself must be finely tuned.

That is, R has to be such that it contains the number four in its subset. The smaller the value R, the less likely it is the R contains the number four. The larger the value R, the less likely it is that A will become four. Additionally, since R could be any number from 0 to infinity, it would seem as though the probability of it containing four would be some constant k in infinity, and a constant over infinity is, of course, zero.

As I'm sure you're well aware, many scientists respond to the fine tuning argument by invoking a multiverse (which is ironic, since this is a non-scientific claim) and anthropic principal argument. They would make the claim that in each universe the values of A, B, and C are different, so if each constant has a 1/10 probability of supporting life, then with 1000 universes there is a 62.3% chance of life existing in at least one.

But why must A, B, and C exist? Doesn't this suggest that there is yet another governing law ABOVE the multiverse that says each universe within it must have values A, B, and C, and that each value must then be different? Is there some mistake in my reasoning? It seems this should be more obvious otherwise.

Thanks,

Ken

Dr. Craig responds:

I think your intuitions on this matter are basically correct, Ken. I'd commend to you the work of Robin Collins, who is probably the best thinker working on these questions. I'll include a list of references at the end of this answer. In order to calculate the probability of a constant's being such that it leads to a life-supporting universe, we need to calculate the ratio between the range of life-permitting values and the range of values it might have, whether life-permitting or not. We can assess the range of life-permitting values by holding the laws of nature constant while altering the value of the constant which plays a role in that law. So, for example, we can figure out what would happen if we decrease or increase the force of gravity, and we discover that alterations beyond a certain range would result either in large-scale objects' ceasing to stick together or else collapsing. That will give us an idea of the range of strength of the gravitational force that is compatible with physical life forms.

Then we compare that range with the range of values that the constant could have assumed. This is trickier, but a simple rule of thumb is to take the range to be as wide as we can see that such values are possible. There may be values that a constant could have which lie outside our ken, but so long as the range that we can see is large in comparison to the life-permitting range, then that constant's having the value it does is improbable. For some of the constants, like the cosmological constant, the range of life permitting values is incomprehensibly tiny in comparison with the range of values we see that it could have, so that the chances of the constant's having the value it does is virtually next to impossible.

The range itself is not fine-tuned. Rather it is the individual constant that is fine-tuned, that is to say, in order for the universe to be life-permitting the constant must fall into a very narrow life-permitting range in comparison to the range of values it could have assumed.

You're right that detractors of design have been forced to resort to the extraordinary Many Worlds Hypothesis in an effort to explain away fine-tuning. If there is a World Ensemble of universes which are infinite in number and varying randomly in their constants and initial conditions, then by chance alone a life-permitting universe will appear in the ensemble, indeed, it will appear an infinite number of times.

Now this recourse to the World Ensemble will be in vain if it turns out that the mechanism that generates the World Ensemble must itself be fine-tuned, for then one has only kicked the problem upstairs. And, indeed, that does seem to be the case. The most popular candidate for a World Ensemble today, the inflationary multiverse, does appear to require fine-tuning. For example, M-theory, the theory which supposedly governs the multiverse, works only if there are exactly eleven dimensions -- but it does nothing to explain why precisely that number of dimensions should exist.

So when your teachers or classmates pull the multiverse out of the bag, just ask them, "Isn't the multiverse itself describable by specific physical laws? Don't those laws themselves include constants and boundary conditions which must be fine-tuned in order for the multiverse to exist?'" It will be interesting to hear their reply!

and more

Question:

Hi, Dr. Craig you're my favorite Christian philosopher. From listening to your lectures and audio lessons you're a firm believer that design is the simplest explanation for the fine tuning of the universe. I ran into an article by Richard Carrier "debunking" the fine tuning argument, in a response to James Hannam (bede.org.uk), Richard responded with this,

Hannam has failed to show that it is even possible for one constant to change while the others remain the same. For altering one constant may irrevocably alter another, greatly modifying any conclusion we can draw from modeling possible universes. Thus, just as Hannam warns against arguments based on the improbability of life forming naturally on the grounds that science might discover the natural means of forming life, so should he be warned against using a Fine Tuning argument based on the assumption of independent constants when science may soon discover, for example, a Grand Unified Theory or a Theory of Everything that shows how all the constants are causally related to each other.

Constants of nature and arbitrary quantities are a big part of the fine tuning argument, how should we as Christians who use this argument respond to a charge like this? From the same article Richard throws this argument out about constants,

in the 19th century there were some twenty to forty ‘physical constants,' there are now only around six. All the others have over the intervening century been proven to be causally determined by more fundamental factors. For example, the boiling point of water was once considered a physical constant, but is now known to be the result of quantum mechanical laws, and thus could not be any different than it is without also changing the laws of quantum mechanics. Since the trend has been steadily in this direction, it is reasonable to predict that all the constants will end up being explained in this fashion. For example, since Planck's constant defines the smallest possible unit of space and time, it may be the case that the speed of light is inexorably tied to Planck's constant, so that one cannot be changed without altering the other.

Is it possible for all the constants to be explained away by some scientific theory? Also, how would you respond to this objection to Christian theism through multiple universes?

Again unlike theism, "multiple universes" has another inherent merit that Hannam does not consider: we know that a universe exists, and Hannam himself is agreeing that different universes are in principle possible, so we have a ready explanation of what is unknown by appealing to a known entity--that universes exist. In contrast, the theist tries to explain the same unknown by appealing to a completely unknown entity, that is, an entity that has never been scientifically observed and could well not exist at all. How does it make more sense to appeal to such a strange and unobserved entity when we can explain the same things by appealing to an entity that everyone agrees exists? Since a universe exists, and other universes are possible, isn't it plausible that other universes exist? Certainly, we cannot know they do. But we cannot know they do not and thus any argument for God that supposes they do not is an argument from ignorance. Once again, agnosticism is the only justified outcome of this line of reasoning.

Does the mere fact that our universe exist make the multiple universe hypothesis more credible than the God hypothesis just because in Richards word "God is an unknown entity, who cannot be scientifically observed?"

As a guy who uses the fine tuning argument a lot it would be helpful for me as well as other Christians to have answers to these possible objections when we witness in our personal lives.

God bless you Dr Craig,

Christopher

Dr. Craig responds:

While I'm not familiar with the exchange between Carrier and Hannam that you cite, Chris, permit me to comment on the issues raised by your question.

That the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life is a pretty solidly established fact and ought not to be a subject of controversy. By "fine-tuning" one does not mean "designed" but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair's breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist.

Carrier is mistaken when he asserts that there are only about six physical constants in contemporary physics; on the contrary, the standard model of particle physics involves a couple dozen or so. The figure six may be derived from Sir Martin Rees' book Just Six Numbers (New York: Basic Books, 2000), in which he focuses attention on six of these constants which must be finely tuned for our existence. But this is just a selection of the constants there are, and new constants, unknown in the 19th century, like the so-called cosmological constant, which must be fine-tuned to one part in 10120 in order for life to exist, are being discovered as physics advances.

In addition to these constants, there are also the arbitrary quantities which serve as boundary conditions on which the laws of nature operate, such as the level of entropy in the early universe, which are also fine-tuned for life. If one may speak of a pattern, it would be that fine-tuning, like a stubborn bump in the carpet, just won't go away: when it is suppressed in one place, it pops up in another. Moreover, although some of the constants may be related so that a change in the value of one will upset the value another, others of the constants, not to mention the boundary conditions, are not interdependent in this way. In any case, there's no reason at all to suspect so happy a coincidence that such changes would exactly compensate for one another so that in the aftermath of such an alteration life could still exist. It appears that fine-tuning is here to stay.

Now there are only three ways to account for this remarkable fine-tuning of the cosmos for intelligent life: physical necessity, chance, or design. The contemporary debate is over which of these is the best explanation of the observed fine-tuning. Carrier seems to prefer either of the alternatives to design.

Physical necessity is the hypothesis that the constants and quantities had to have the values they do, so that the universe is of physical necessity life-permitting. Now on the face of it this alternative is extraordinarily implausible. It requires us to believe that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible. But surely it does seem possible. If the primordial matter and anti-matter had been differently proportioned, if the universe had expanded just a little more slowly, if the entropy of the universe were marginally greater, any of these adjustments and more would have prevented a life-permitting universe, yet all seem perfectly possible physically. The person who maintains that the universe must be life-permitting is taking a radical line which requires strong proof. But there isn't any; this alternative is simply put forward as a bare possibility.

Sometimes physicists do speak of a yet to be discovered Theory of Everything (T.O.E.), but such nomenclature is, like so many of the colorful names given to scientific theories, quite misleading. A T.O.E. actually has the limited goal of providing a unified theory of the four fundamental forces of nature, to reduce gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force to one fundamental force carried by one fundamental particle. Such a theory will, we hope, explain why these four forces take the values they do, but it will not even attempt to explain literally everything.

For example, in the most promising candidate for a T.O.E. to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, the physical universe must be 11-dimensional, but why the universe should possess just that number of dimensions is not addressed by the theory. Moreover, M-Theory fails to predict uniquely the values of the constants of nature. It turns out that string theory allows a "cosmic landscape" of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature but with different values of the physical constants. Moreover, even though there may be a huge number of possible universes lying within the life-permitting region of the cosmic landscape, nevertheless that life-permitting region will be unfathomably tiny compared to the entire landscape, so that the existence of a life-permitting universe is fantastically improbable. Indeed, given the number of constants that require fine-tuning, it is far from clear that 10500 possible universes is enough to guarantee that even one life-permitting world will appear by chance in the landscape!

All this has been said with respect to the constants alone; there is still nothing to explain the arbitrary quantities put in as boundary conditions. The extraordinarily low entropy condition of the early universe would be a good example of an arbitrary quantity which seems to have just been put in at the creation as an initial condition. There is no reason to think that showing every constant and quantity to be physically necessary is anything more than a pipe-dream.

So what about the alternative of chance? This is the "multiple universe" hypothesis mentioned by Carrier. The multiple universe hypothesis is essentially an effort on the part of partisans of chance to multiply their probabilistic resources in order to reduce the improbability of the occurrence of fine-tuning. (The more spins of the roulette wheel, the better the chances of your number coming up!) The very fact that otherwise sober scientists must resort to such a remarkable hypothesis is a sort of backhanded compliment to the design hypothesis. It shows that the fine-tuning does cry out for explanation. But is the multiple universe hypothesis as plausible as the design hypothesis?

I'm not at all impressed by Carrier's appeal to familiarity as an argument for preferring the multiple universe hypothesis. For we have no experience whatsoever of other universes -- the multiple universe hypothesis is a bold venture in metaphysical cosmology. Our familiarity with our universe does nothing to warrant the appeal to other universes as familiar entities -- at least not more so than the design hypothesis. For while we are likewise not familiar with designers of universes, we certainly are familiar with minds and the products of intelligent design, so that the appeal to a designer as the best explanation of the fine-tuning is an appeal to a familiar explanatory entity. Indeed, theists have sometimes been accused of anthropomorphism in this regard!

Moreover, while we have no evidence of the existence of multiple universes, we do have independent reasons for believing in the existence of an ultramundane designer of the universe, namely, the other arguments for the existence of God, which I have defended elsewhere.

Finally, Carrier is mistaken when he opines that we cannot know that multiple universes do not exist and therefore agnosticism is the only justified conclusion. (Interesting to compare this conclusion with the frequent atheist claim that in the absence of evidence for God we should conclude that God does not exist! Do you see the inconsistency?) He is unaware of the potentially lethal objections to the multiple universe hypothesis that have been lodged by physicists like Roger Penrose of Oxford University (The Road to Reality [New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005], pp. 762-5). Simply stated, if our universe is but one member of an infinite world ensemble of randomly varying universes, then it is overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than that which we in fact observe.

Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe's low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. The odds of our solar system's being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, on the other hand, about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123). Penrose calls it "chicken feed" by comparison! So if our universe were but one member of a collection of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. Observable universes like that are much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but one random member of an ensemble of worlds.

Or again, if our universe is but one random member of a world ensemble, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses' popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature's constants and quantities falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiple universe hypothesis. Penrose concludes that multiple universe explanations are so "impotent" that it is actually "misconceived" to appeal to them to explain the special features of the universe.

Since the alternative of chance stands or falls with the multiple universe hypothesis, that alternative is seen to be very implausible. It therefore seems that the fine-tuning of the universe is plausibly due neither to physical necessity nor to chance. It follows that the fine-tuning is therefore due to design, unless the design hypothesis can be shown to be even more implausible than its competitors. On that question, see my critique of Dawkins' objection the design inference in the Question Archive.

Mr. Redemption,

Mr. Craig is not a physicist. Read Leonard Susskind.

"
Mr. Redemption,

Mr. Craig is not a physicist."

And Hawking isn't God. Yet some people take his word as such.

Too funny.

#9 | Posted by rosemountbomber at 2010-09-02 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Physicists are also bound by logic. If it does not make sense, scientifically it cannot be the answer. Especially if you argue that it is necessary and yet cannot show why it is necessary or how it is necessary, or where it's necessity lies.

It is not the most probable explanation at the current time. That is what he is stating.

Did you read through all the information that was posted?

Hawking is not a philosopher, Hawking is not a logician either. Since Hawking is not a logician, does that mean he is discredited from talking about anything? No.

To make a claim that has limited backing is to put oneself out there. Hawking as done such with M-Theory. It has problems. You cannot deny it.

If you were Hawking, would you believe in a G-d that gave you the brain he did in the body he did? Hawking is one of G-d's cruelest jokes IMHO.

Kan:

Don't eliminate Satan's role in things.

But, you and I don't agree on this subject. : )

Gotta run, have a great day, my friend!

#12 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-09-02 09:52 AM | Reply | Flag

And yet there are people who are similar and appreciate what they do have as a blessing. Surely you are not stating that those who are cripple or have some malady have less purpose or reason to live than other individuals?

They have just as many opportunities and gifts, the question is whether they use them or not.

Also, I would like to know how you are evaluating his position as "good" or "bad"?

Just because Hawking does not like his situation it does not mean it is a "bad" situation objectively.

I don't believe there are cruel jokes by God. I do think people can take things that God did as a joke, instead of taking them seriously and responding seriously to them.

There is a matter of perspective here.

There is a matter of perspective here.

Absolutely. I feel G-d is a comedian in many regards which is why laughter is such an amazing experiance: it is close to feeling as G-d does.

Blake Edwards wrote it best: There is a G-d, and he's a gag writer!

Surely you are not stating that those who are cripple or have some malady have less purpose or reason to live than other individuals?

Not at all. I do however recognize the irony of a mind as great as Hawking's not being able to run his body where the minds of a great many dumber people's can.

Would you rather have the brain of Hawking in his body or your brain in yours?

because God didn't physically ignite the big bang doesn't mean he didn't create the universe either.

the laws of physics could be God's creation.

i'm not saying there is or isn't a God. But again, if you go back far enough there is always a question of where it comes from.

"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.

So, the law of gravity created itself from nothing?

Or is there another law we don't know about that requires the law of gravity to exist?

The logic is circular.

Cosmologists have been upset ever since the BBT predicted something out of nothing, which sounds too much like Genesis.

Hawking is right.

.

#17 | Posted by klifferd at 2010-09-02 10:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

The problem with what you are positing and what Hawking stated is that Hawking says "God is not necessary for the Big Bang" basically the universe exists based on the necessity of its own nature.

You are saying that the big bang is dependent on God as he would have had to produce the original laws and constants to allow the big bang to happen "naturally" or from running to the ultimate conclusion of the laws that were present and interacting with one another.

So Hawking states - The big bang and the universe exist from necessity of its own nature
You state - The big bang and universe existence is contingent on God pre-tuning the conditions for such events to take place, thus not existing out due to the necessity of its own nature.

The problem with the M-Theory is that it makes such a statement as Hawking, and yet it still requires explanation in regard to the initial fine tuning which allows the M-Theory to come into play and work within itself, specifically, why the need for 11 dimensions and how was that necessitated from nothing to begin with.

So, the law of gravity created itself from nothing?

Hey, if god can create himself from nothing, why can't gravity?

This is the basic flaw in the creationist argument. They keep arguing that something from nothing is not possible. God had to do it. But when you asked them where their god came from, they are eerily silent.

At any rate, I've seen zero evidence of god in my lifetime, but lots of evidence of gravity. Invisible sky fairies without proof just doesn't satisfy my curiosity nor do they endure the rigors of the scientific method.

#19 | Posted by Roy_Batty at 2010-09-02 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

And,pray tell, how is Hawking right, what reasonable evidences do you see for Hawking's correctness in this situation? Of what knowledge do we have of other Universes?

And if gravity is as some cosmologists theorize now a weak force because it "leaks" into our dimension from another dimension... what's the weather like over there?

And if some QM theory is right and there are either 11 dimensions or infinite dimensions, what does that do to this type of either/or something can or cannot be created from nothing sort of logic?

And if particles can "communicate" change over a vast distance with no known connection..... is that supposed to be logical, too?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, er, Stephen, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Besides, he's never been wrong about any major theory before... oh, wait...

Cosmologists have been upset ever since the BBT predicted something out of nothing, which sounds too much like Genesis.
#18 | Posted by Corky

Becaue it's a crock of shit.

So, the law of gravity created itself from nothing?

Existence always existed. It's eternal.

because God didn't physically ignite the big bang doesn't mean he didn't create the universe either.
the laws of physics could be God's creation.

God is man's creation. It's a dumping ground for human ignorance.

It's a dumping ground for human ignorance.

#24 | Posted by Ray

"And that's MY job!" - Raystradamus

#21 | Posted by goatman at 2010-09-02 10:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

Your problem, however, is that you do not understand the two differentiations of necessity.

One is existence incumbent upon some things own nature and the necessity thereof.

Others are existent separate from their own nature and caused by some external factor.

#24 | Posted by Ray at 2010-09-02 10:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

The science is not on your side in this Ray. It is almost unanimous that the universe began to be at some point or another.

an infinite regression cannot overlap, yet things have overlapped at this point and therefore the universe cannot be infinite.

So where did god come from?

There is a G-d, and he's a gag writer!

Seems cruel to me, surely undeserving of praise.

a mind as great as Hawking's

Hawkins was wrong about the origins of black holes. Then he was wrong about information loss in an event horizon. His new book is about how he was wrong on the big bang.
Nothing wrong with being wrong, but he spends and awful lot of time just correcting himself and seems to get credit for being a genius as a result. There are dozens of physicists and cosmologists changing the nature of the universe as we know it daily. Hawkins isn't one of them. He's a Bearded Lady.

If he were just a regular guy with the same body of work he has now none of us would know his name. It is a little disturbing that John Mather or Martin Bojowald would need to be crippled before anyone would give a hoot about them.

#29 Well put.

#29 | Posted by BluSky at 2010-09-02 10:51 AM | Reply | Flag: can't even spell Hawking

Let me guess, Cambridge turned you down for Steve's old job.

"And that's MY job!" - Raystradamus
#25 | Posted by Corky

Your asshole can't get much bigger.

The science is not on your side in this Ray. It is almost unanimous that the universe began to be at some point or another.
#27 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

The truth of reality is independent of human thought; it is not decided by majority opinion.

an infinite regression cannot overlap, yet things have overlapped at this point and therefore the universe cannot be infinite.

If the universe is finite, then what is outside its boundaries? It cannot expand unless there is something to expand to. It cannot have a beginning unless there is something to have a beginning from. Any idea of a finite universe or a creator god fails on grounds of infinite regression. Therefore the universe is infinite.

Hawking quickly ran into what everyone runs into when attempting to describe the ultimate origins of the universe:

Human beings just don't have the imagination.

#33 | Posted by Zed at 2010-09-02 11:03 AM | Reply | Flag: lint-for-brains

Hey lint-brain, jeeebus still hasn't shown up to suck my ass.

I can feel your envy, ZAT. When will you grow up?

Another fallacy of the idea of a finite universe or a creator god is the claim of existence before existence. How can god exist before he createed existence? For the record, Genesis says god created order out of chaos. It does not say god created existence out of nothing.

Hey lint-brain, jeeebus still hasn't shown up to suck my ass.

I'm thinking He doesn't want to. Have a different theory, do you?

It would appear that once again the creationists have lost their argument by allowing a property to be assigned to their opposing side's argument (that you can't get something from nothing ala BB) but not allow that property to be assigned to their side (god came from nothing)

Sorry -- all rules apply to both sides or they don't apply to either. Basic HS debate team rule, guys. Get back with us when you are ready to play on a level playing field. Until then, you got nothin'!

Anyone feel that they've actually learned something from Hawkings latest science fiction? He leaves all the ancient and interesting questions intact. Nothing more than what was expected, so I'm not blaming him.

Seems cruel to me, surely undeserving of praise.

I don't agree. Like I said before, laughter is the closest we can ever get to feeling like G-d. It is a universal language for a reason- it reaches the part of G-d in all of us.

We were made in G-d's image and we love laughter. What should that tell you about G-d?

Anyone feel that they've actually learned something from Hawkings latest science fiction? He leaves all the ancient and interesting questions intact. Nothing more than what was expected, so I'm not blaming him.
#40 | Posted by Zed

Yeah sure. Zed thinks we're as ignorant today as ancients were thousands of years ago.

Hmmm, and what is the cosmology still taught as accepted theory in universities today? The BBT.

#39 | Posted by goatman at 2010-09-02 11:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Goatman, did you read the link that I sent to you? I presume that you did not. Otherwise you would realize that your minimization of the argument is trite at best.

You are not understanding the concepts of the argument and you are not applying the merits and the facts where they apply.

I am sorry that you do not like the conclusion that is necessitated by the current findings, but it does not make it untrue. The same goes for Ray.

Something had to always exist, from what we know, the universe is not that something, therefore that something is something else other than the universe.

Goatman, when you stop trying to bring the point to absurdity and really start trying to understand what is being discussed, maybe then you will find some answers. Until then, don't blame your ignorance on anything else but your own lack of initiative.

Zed thinks we're as ignorant today as ancients were thousands of years ago.

In a certain way, yes. ZAT'S still a savage, for example. There are a few others who come here who would be overt cannibals, but for the restraint imposed upon them by others.

It's the "singularity" that existed fractions of a millisecond prior to the BB that so twists their panties in a bunch.

Yes, I read it, but not just now. That link has been presented here before

ANd I maintain my stance -- if those arguments can apply to god, they can apply to the BB. If for argument's sake god can come from nothing, then so can the universe. Fair is fair.

Hmmm, and what is the cosmology still taught as accepted theory in universities today? The BBT.
#43 | Posted by Corky

At least science is capable of self-correction. Religion is frozen in time.

In a certain way, yes. ZAT'S still a savage, for example. There are a few others who come here who would be overt cannibals, but for the restraint imposed upon them by others.
#45 | Posted by Zed

Zat still thinks earth is going to burn up in a cloud of CO2.

#39 | Posted by goatman at 2010-09-02 11:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

"But who Created God?"

It hasn't self-corrected yet on the BBT.

But we'll always have haters of the concept of God.

Which generally takes less faith to believe than much of QM.

I believe some things "always were" in one form or another. There was something before the Big Bang; that is logic. Something had to go "BANG" and there had to be something in the void being filled by the burst; even if it was just a different void.

Something had to always exist, from what we know, the universe is not that something, therefore that something is something else other than the universe. =
#44 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Exactly. Something had to always exist because existence is infinite. What form the universe takes over time is another matter.

#48 | Posted by Ray at 2010-09-02 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is not true. Your suppose that religion is frozen in time from your perspective, but what you are seeing right now, may not be that timeless religion you think it is.

For instance. If the bible or any other book is meant to be understood in some other way than it is currently understood, does that make the bible or other book incorrect, or the person who is understanding it in the wrong way incorrect?

You see, as you said, if something is true it doesn't matter what you think about it. That is objectivity.

If the bible or another book is objectively true, then sure, it is timeless, however it is correct and timeless. You may take it currently in an incorrect manner and think that religion doesn't change. However, our understanding of it may change, update, increase, more more toward correct, in the same fashion as it does with science.

You seem to overlook the logical when it comes to the other side, but accept it when it comes to science. That is interesting to say the least.

#53 | Posted by Ray at 2010-09-02 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

Incorrect, you are limiting the eternal existence of "some" thing to the universe. We have already established that the universe has not existed and is not that "some" thing that has always existed.

That is your problem. You refuse to move out of the idea that the Universe is not the do-all end all. Which means you are not following the logic as logic and science tells us that the universe itself cannot be the do all end all.

#50

There are also many links explaining possible conditions that existed to create the BB.

For instance. If the bible or any other book is meant to be understood in some other way than it is currently understood, does that make the bible or other book incorrect, or the person who is understanding it in the wrong way incorrect?

The Bible has thousands of errors and self-contradictions.

Incorrect, you are limiting the eternal existence of "some" thing to the universe. We have already established that the universe has not existed and is not that "some" thing that has always existed.

How has that been established? The argument of something out of nothing is absurd!

That is your problem. You refuse to move out of the idea that the Universe is not the do-all end all. Which means you are not following the logic as logic and science tells us that the universe itself cannot be the do all end all.

From what did the universe come? Answer that one simple question. Science tells us that the universe has no need for the god hypothesis too. Yet you reject that argument.

#56 | Posted by goatman at 2010-09-02 11:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Possibility does not render plausibility.

Anything can be possible, especially when we don't understand the scope of the situation. Did you read the whole article, and also look at the video?

Incorrect, you are limiting the eternal existence of "some" thing to the universe.

But that's the definition of existence. If there is no thing, there is no existence.

You're using words without understanding their meaning.

God is man's creation. It's a dumping ground for human ignorance.

#24 | Posted by Ray at 2010-09-02 10:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

No, god is a representation of what we came from. Religion is a creation of man. For something that was created, why is it ignorance to believe that there was a creator whether that creator be sentient being or a mere higher existence without form that always existed.

From what did the universe come? Answer that one simple question. Science tells us that the universe has no need for the god hypothesis too. Yet you reject that argument.

#57 | Posted by Ray at 2010-09-02 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

The universe had to come from something which contained the ability, and intent to either create, manufacture, or make possible such a set of principles necessary for this particular universe to exist.

Why is this necessary?

1. If something has the ability and yet not the intention, it will not happen, especially when talking about beginnings and causes from eternal existence.

2. If something has the intent and not the ability, then it will not take place, as even though intent is present, the ability is not and therefore it cannot come into being.

3. So the ability and intention has to be there.

When it comes to intention you have to look past that which has come into being. We know the universe was not always in being. It came into being as such it is in our scope. This means that something with the ability to posit such things and the intention of pre-tuning things for all these possibilities to take place must exist.

That is what is before the universe. The problem is that it is hard to figure out what that may be. To say it is the universe itself however is not logical nor merited.

The universe did not always exist, "some" thing with ability and intention capable of positing it has caused it in some manner.

Now we get into the explanation of things and how far explanation goes. That is another story.

#59 | Posted by Ray at 2010-09-02 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ray, you already agreed to the premise that the Universe did not always exist.

Either you are illogical, you did it by accident, or you are going back on it because you don't like the implications and the necessary conclusions of such.

Ray vs Exps?

The proverbial battle of wits between unarmed opponents...

Another fallacy of the idea of a finite universe or a creator god is the claim of existence before existence. How can god exist before he createed existence? For the record, Genesis says god created order out of chaos. It does not say god created existence out of nothing.

#37 | Posted by Ray at 2010-09-02 11:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well is God existed, then obviously there never was a point where there was nothing. God just always existed and the universe is just a mold of the energy that existed before without purpose.

On some cosmic transcendal level which human brains are unable to comprehend, maybe God and gravity et al are one and the same.

The universe had to come from something which contained the ability, and intent to either create, manufacture, or make possible such a set of principles necessary for this particular universe to exist.
Why is this necessary?

If the universe had to come from something, then it had to exist. It cannot exist in non-existence.

Ray, you already agreed to the premise that the Universe did not always exist.

No I did not.

The proverbial battle of wits between unarmed opponents...
#63 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Prove it asshole!

Well is God existed, then obviously there never was a point where there was nothing. God just always existed and the universe is just a mold of the energy that existed before without purpose.
#64 | Posted by daniel_3

It's a shame that pre-history superstition is still popular today.

Ray vs Exps?

If rCade put a surcharge on unread comments those two would be taking out a second mortgage.

Many of you are missing the most provocative aspect of what Hawking is saying. As counter-intuitive and difficult as it is for our human brains to comprehend, Hawking is indicating that Something can spontaneously come into existence out of Nothing. Or, as Hawking puts it, the existence of a God would be redundant.

And frankly none of us here on the DR have the mathematical background to engage in an in-depth criticism (pro or con) of the physics related reasons why he has reached that conclusion.

Hawking is indicating that Something can spontaneously come into existence out of Nothing. Or, as Hawking puts it, the existence of a God would be redundant.

That's not logic that necessarily flows from such a statement.

But it is part of the statement he made. The point being, that if existence is able to spontaneously come out of Nothing, then there is no need for a God in the first place. That is what he means by "redundant". If one lays aside individual theologic perspectives for a moment, what Hawking is saying is pretty mind blowing.

then there is no need for a God in the first place

That's not necessary logic, either.

what Hawking is saying is pretty mind blowing.

I've encountered variations on this idea previously. I'm wondering, for a start, if something out of nothing follows any laws, and if the laws---well, hey----They were just part of the "nothing".

Man has always created God in his own image.

The Universe exists because it does. Recent understandings of Black Holes have shown that we may not even be the only Universe. In fact, other Universes may have created this one.

God will just have to move to another Gap in our Knowledge.

The Universe exists because it does

Very scientific.

If rCade put a surcharge on unread comments those two would be taking out a second mortgage.

#69 | Posted by BluSky

Funny flag

Doughnuts exist because they do.

I'm wagering we can eliminate practically any mystery this way. Your thoughts?

Now, if doughnuts were to appear out of nothing, I'm thinking that might actually be an elegant proof of God. Gimme a glazed.

You are making me hungry, Zed! - Homer J

Possibility does not render plausibility.

Exactly. That's why I base my world view on what I see. I see the universe. I don't see god.

Anything can be possible, especially when we don't understand the scope of the situation.

Again, excellent point. And we watch the god of the gaps narrow the more we learn of our universe. Unfortunately for those who believe in god, the narrowing of that gap makes theirs even wider. Science continues to march on and explain those things that used to be attributable to god. The creationist, OTOH, still depend on an ancient text as their one and only "proof" that god exists.

Very scientific.

#75 | Posted by Zed

Why do you think it has to have a "Creator". Because someone told you this in your little book of Magic? I believe that Hawking is trying to put it in layman's terms so simple that even you could understand (if you wanted too).

The Universe is not the End all and Be all of Everything. Existence just got bigger again. Existence is. (doughnuts on the other hand exist because of Cops who wished them into existence). There may be many Universes and they expand and collapse naturally and create each other. At one time we thought everything was made of Earth Wind and Fire. Then we "discovered" that there were atoms. There was another Universe within the Universe.

God had to move.

Your God has to move again.

So sorry. Maybe you can get Him to grow up and mature some more to match the level of His "Creations".

Maybe you need a New New Testament to explain this New and Improved God.

Unfortunately for those who believe in god, the narrowing of that gap makes theirs even wider.

As I've stated perhaps a dozen times now, I've yet to meet anyone who is convicted of God because of such things.

people talk about this like it matters

people talk about this like it matters

Well, it does. Now you don't have to worry about the origin of doughnuts.

Why do you think it has to have a "Creator".

Assuming my ideas are bullshit, all you've done in this instance is to substitute crap to your taste.

Yep. It all just appears. Stop talking to me about "magic", you superstitious whorehound.

Now you don't have to worry about the origin of doughnuts.

#84 | Posted by Zed

Mmmm doughnuts

Now, if doughnuts were to appear out of nothing, I'm thinking that might actually be an elegant proof of God.

hmmmm let's see here... at one time in this solar system there was no such thing as doughnuts.

In fact, at one time in this space there was nothing. There were NO doughnuts.

Fast forward billions of years.

There are now doughnuts in this Space and Time.

Once could then say doughnuts were "created" from Nothing. It just took a while.

at one time in this solar system there was no such thing as doughnuts.

Until they appeared out of nothing. I do think I've mastered your mode of thought.

Fast forward billions of years.

Given your ideas, I'm not at all sure why that was required. It's harder for "nothing" to create a lemon-filled doughnut than a hyrogen atom? Interesting.

Oh, I know----It's not REASONABLE for doughnuts to preceed doughnuts----"Nothing" has to follow some rules.

It's not REASONABLE for doughnuts to preceed doughnuts

Sorry---It's obviously important to "Nothing" that hydrogen atoms preceed bakeries. I get that. Who could argue otherwise?

"Doughnuts are proof there is a God"

-Larry Mohr

Stop talking to me about "magic", you superstitious whorehound.

#85 | Posted by Zed

Why is it that embarrassing to you? I am superstitious because I beleive in gravity and that gravity exists because it does because it is a Natural Law not one created by a God?

No, I am just realistic.

You are the superstitious one. Sky Daddies that listen to your every thoughts (CREEPY!)..Angels...Demons...a dimension called Hell or a place called Heaven....Life after Death...

It is easy to believe that in the illusion that everything has a purpose. And that there is a Higher Power and a reason (God's Will) for everything.

Much harder to see things as they actually are and still keep your wits about you.

Zed, please don't convince me that you are wilfully stupid. Please. Your arguments seems intentionally circular and avoiding the point.

because it is a Natural Law not one created by a God?

"Nothing" is a natural law? Flexible son-of-a-bitch, isn't he?

I'd say that you can't make this shit up, but obviously you do. My objection to you is that you slip into playing badmitton without a net just as easily as anyone you critique. But if you didn't fudge your own standards you'd have much less to say.

I do think I've mastered your mode of thought.

#88 | Posted by Zed

RIGHT...you have "mastered" Nothing as far as I can see. Hope that works out for you.

Your arguments seems intentionally circular and avoiding the point.

I've just raised the natural, obvious questions. I can't help it if I think it's all pretty funny.

I'd say that you can't make this shit up, but obviously you do.

Heh...my "shit" is a good as your "shit". Except yours is not even original.

Nothing" is a natural law? Flexible son-of-a-bitch, isn't he?

I would agree that the concept of "Nothing" is natural too but I don't think I said that.

I said Gravity is "Natural". At least in this Universe.

Something had to always exist, from what we know, the universe is not that something, therefore that something is something else other than the universe. =
#44 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Exactly. Something had to always exist because existence is infinite. What form the universe takes over time is another matter.

You agreed right there Ray. Face the facts.

Also, for those who are discussing "God of the Gaps", you surely don't understand that aspect of the discussion either. No one is claiming God of the gaps. But I see you like absurd, simply arguments. I am sure they make it easier for you to believe your presupposition of logic and facts.

I think it is funny that most people don't even understand that this argument is not about design or anything like that. There is no capacity to see the truth of the facts.

The universe began at some point, if by another universe, that universe began at some point, as we have seen that our universe began at some point it would be logical to say the "other" universe that caused this one began at some point.

All the multiverse theory does is kick the can down the road.

Doughnuts exist because they do.

#77 | Posted by Zed

Then how do you explain doughnut holes? There is nothing there.

No dough.

No nut.

Is nothing really something?

Is the absence of something still quantifiable?

What is the complete absence of energy? To us, really, really damn cold!

Can something come from nothing, which is Hawking's premise.

Do doughnut holes really exist? Or do we surmise they exist?

You are an idiot EXPS. What Hawking is stating does not "kick the can down the road". He is saying based on complex math and physics, that Something can spontaneously come int existence out of Nothing. Now, please, don't pretend that you understand the math and the physics involved. Try for a moment to expand your mind far enough to grasp that what may seem impossible to your human brain is possible in world of quantum physics and higher mathematics.

It's harder for "nothing" to create a lemon-filled doughnut than a hyrogen atom? Interesting.

#89 | Posted by Zed

actually it is a bit harder but the process is the same. Time is Vast. With enough Time amazing things can be accomplished. Like Jelly Doughnuts. You can't see this? No, probably not, because you have convinced yourself that the Universe has to have a Creator to make sense.

With enough Time A hydrogen atom can Self Assemble from the components and laws of the Universe (via quarks etc). And from hydrogen many other elements can be assembled by the Natural Forces of Gravity in a Sun. It is Life that is the tricky thing to "self" assemble. But, Given enough Time and just the right conditions it finally did "self assemble" and that is when things got real interesting. The Universe rose up from the Dust and looked around at itself.

And it decided that it needed jelly doughnuts.... and it was good!

#103 | Posted by moder8 at 2010-09-02 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I understand what he is saying enough to know that he is NOT saying that "based on complex math and physics that Something can spontaneously come int existence out of Nothing", as he is saying that the universe caused itself to come into existence, before it existed. This does not follow logic.

Many individuals who discuss the subject understand this. Hawking is not correct, based on what we see, and what we know thus far, based on math, and science, philosophy and logic.

I may not have all the pieces to put together what Hawking studied, however I do have the capacity to study up other people who do, and they state that Hawking has come up with nothing but a warmed over theory, with a very cold explanation and minimal explanatory scope, which is dependent upon a pre-loading of fine tuning to make sure the universe can behave in this way to begin with.

All the multiverse theory does is kick the can down the road.

#101 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

If it does then you need to get to work on God. He needs to grow up again.

The Gap just moved.

Again.

#104 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-09-02 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem is that there is not endless time to work with. So far as we have seen, there was a beginning. What it was is what is in question.

This deals with explanatory scope. M Theory does not have the necessary scope or logic.

#106 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-09-02 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag: Minimal understanding capacity of complex arguments.

Donner, you have to understand that just because you simplify something to absurdity does not make you right.

God of the gaps is a meme, the same as "the universe always existed!".

If you cant follow the premises to the logical conclusion, you are the one that is deluded.

"Something can spontaneously come into existence out of Nothing. "

Happens all the time.
Instead of the usual battle of wits among unarmed opponents why don't you at least catch up with early 20th century quantum mechanics.

The question, of course, is why did some matter survive?
Why did it not all annihilate with the equal amount of antimatter at the Big Bang?
The answer was why Val Fitch and Jim Cronin got the Nobel 30 years ago (do try and keep up you pathetic morons) and now at Fermilab it's been experimentally verified.

Also, for those who are discussing "God of the Gaps", you surely don't understand that aspect of the discussion either. No one is claiming God of the gaps.

Really? Then you don't understand what the "God of the Gaps" means.

God exists in those gaps of our knowledge where we just don't have an explanation yet for why things are the way they are.

We have learned that for every reaction there is an opposite and equal reaction. For every event on Earth and Heaven there is a reason. Sometimes we just don't have enough information to explain these things to ourselves and so God was "created" to fill that "Gap" in our knowledge.

Tell me one good reason why you think God exists and I can postulate a REASON that you are wrong given enough information (that damn Evil Tree of Knowledge!).

The Big Bang is one area we all have difficulty with. Because we can have no knowledge from outside the Universe. The other side of the Big Bang is outside our Universe.

Therefore...God.

God of the gaps is a meme, the same as "the universe always existed!".

actually...

God is a Meme. And a damn stubborn one at that.

#111 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-09-02 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wrong. That is what is posited as the God of the Gaps thoery, but no one defends that. You think people defend that, so that you can blow down a straw man in regard to an argument that is not even taking place.

If you understood what was being meant by God and explanatory scope you would see that a "God of the Gaps argument is a fallacious strawman build by weak knowledge.

So far as we have seen, there was a beginning.

Really? How do you know this?

actually it is a bit harder (to make a doughnut) but the process is the same.

No "process" has been specified. It's from "Nothing". Therefore, why a jelly doughnut would be harder to create than, let's say, a beachball or a chinchilla eludes me.

Heh...my "shit" is a good as your "shit".

My rejoinder is that you p[retend to set yourself to a higher standard. I'm never going to be able to explain God, that's a given and from your point of view a fatal defect. So why imitate me and expect no one to mention it?

Reading Zatoichi, followed by reading Zed and EXPS, is like watching NOVA and then switching to Hannah Montana.

With enough Time amazing things can be accomplished.

Or nothing at all. You're not listening to yourself.

Wrong. That is what is posited as the God of the Gaps thoery, but no one defends that.

This is how I know you are full of shit EXP.

Or nothing at all. You're not listening to yourself.

#119 | Posted by Zed

one never learns anything listening to oneself...YOU should know this Zed.

Nothing is all over the place.

Therefore, why a jelly doughnut would be harder to create than, let's say, a beachball or a chinchilla eludes me.

#116 | Posted by Zed

because you deny Time it's amazing power.

Quantum foam, also referred to as spacetime foam, is a concept in quantum mechanics...

Quantum Foam makes you Roam!

because you deny Time it's amazing power.

Woe unto me. The god Time will surely striketh me down. Eventually.

Watch both videos presented here. This is why it is not god of the gaps.

because you deny Time it's amazing power.

You think there's some sort of promise inherent in the nature of time. You're a fuzzy thinker. You can't afford that.

I've seen atheists do this before, take a romp in the Land of Woo. When they think other people do it, they have fits.

#120 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-09-02 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag

You are still misunderstanding the argument. It is not to explain the things we cannot find out with science, it is explain why we can find out things with science. Just watch the two videos, try to to be filling your face with the jelly doughnuts in the process. It will distract you... from your donuts.

So why imitate me and expect no one to mention it?

#117 | Posted by Zed

No one is a blind as He who would not See... right Zeddyboy?

I would never imitate an idiot. That is Sarah Palin dumb.

I do try and emulate Men I respect and admire though.

I would never imitate an idiot

No, I think your idiocy came from out of nothing.

I've seen atheists do this before, take a romp in the Land of Woo. When they think other people do it, they have fits.

#126 | Posted by Zed

As we have seen your dance many times before...

reminds me of a wonderful book about this very subject!

The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav

As we have seen your dance many times before...

You've done more to demonstrate atheism is a religion in one hour than most human beings could imagine.

Who said I was an atheist?

No, I think your idiocy came from out of nothing.

#129 | Posted by Zed

apparently everything came from "there" right Zeddyboy? Doesn't it say so in the God Book?

Don't blow gasket trying to think about that. It's ok. Just turn it over to your Higher Power. Apparently you don't have the imagination to deal with it yourself. It's ok. Some of us just don't have what it takes to be self actualized. That is why you have Religion. It's a drug to comfort those who can't or won't think for themselves. Just let your Higher Power do all the thinking for you and let your mind rest up for the After Life.

Some of us just don't have what it takes to be self actualized.

Anything you have to say about this in relation to yourself will come across as silly and will be picked apart by others much more vicious than I am. I don't know why you'd want to offer ZAT the bait of "self-actualization".

In my own opinion, self-actualized people are doing other things with their time.

What Hawking is stating does not "kick the can down the road". He is saying based on complex math and physics, that Something can spontaneously come int existence out of Nothing.
#103 | Posted by moder8

Not exactly. The idea of spontaneous existence ignores the Law of Conservation of Energy and the Law of Causation. Both laws are premised on a universe with no bounds.

Self existing universe? I think not.

Quentin Smith and William Lane Craig debate excerpt.

So, the Universe was created by the Laws of Physics, which always exited.
So, the Universe was created by God, who always existed.
(Why is one easier or harder to believe than the other?)

So, the Universe and the Laws of Physics are one.
So, the Unverse and God are one.
So, Universe and the Laws of Physics and God are one.

Enter Baruch Spinoza.

#137 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2010-09-02 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Which is the precedent of the others?

Are you stating that the universe and Laws of Physics are necessitated within the nature of God and thus always existent?

Enter Baruch Spinoza.

Sorry, he was banished a long, long time ago. To assert Spinoza considered god to be some free-willed, supernatural entity is, to borrow a term hurled against him, blasphemy!

Big Bang Theory threatens the anti-God crowd. Indeed, this is what drives the whole Cosmological search for something which can negate the threat.

Soooo, folks like Hawking do a lot of imagining, ie. "imaginary time" with nifty quantum fluctuations, tunnels, wormholes and virtual particles which can then allow one to imagine an infinite number of universes. Voila!, an infinite number of universes can explain the existence of our own universe. Indeed, given an infinite number of universes, there is bound to arise one like our own.

And so with all the imagination that is going on, why bother imagining the possibility of a designer? To be sure, it is much easier for the God-threatened cosmologist to invent an infinite number of universes to explain our own, rather than to entertain the possibility of one infinite God!

What was it Mr. Occam said? - "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily!"

How's that Occam's razor workin' for you Hawking?

What was it Mr. Occam said? - "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily!"

How's that Occam's razor workin' for you Hawking?

That's like saying the more extrasolar planets we find, the less valid Kepler's laws are

In my own opinion, self-actualized people are doing other things with their time.

#134 | Posted by Zed

heh...now that is funny coming from you here, now!

BTW- I am doing other things with my time! Never heard of Multitasking? I am backing up Network drives. installing software and preparing a report getting ready to go pick up my boy and gently poking at your God all at the same time!

Did you ever notice how most of the world is actually Nothing? Take an atom of anything. It is mostly Nothing. Put them all together to make a Human and it is still mostly Nothing.

You need to change your way of thinking about Nothing. It is everywhere. It makes up a huge portion of our Universe.

Quantum theory says that nature comes in bits and pieces (quanta), and
quantum mechanics is the study of this phenomenon. your ordinary intuitive concepts cannot be unambiguously applied to the smallest particles in the Universe. In that world we talk about probabilities.

In the subatomic realm, we cannot know both the position and the momentum of a particle with absolute precision.... We can know both, approximately but the more we know about one, the less we know about the other.

All this tells us something. (or should)

It tells us again and again that the world we experience may not be what we think it is... It may be much much more

Because we cannot know both position and momentum we must Choose.

By that act of Choosing we are part of the Creation of the Universe.

There are some who think that Scientists are much like Artists in that they are not "discovering" the Universe but they are helping to Create it.

Now...put THAT in your God Book and dwell upon it beloved.

That's like saying the more extrasolar planets we find, the less valid Kepler's laws are

#141 | Posted by goatman

No it isn't! What an idiot!

#141 | Posted by goatman at 2010-09-02 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

How so? You comparison would have us believe that Hawking has found some other universes in order to posit his view. He has not. So far the explanation is not needed to be such as he is making it with "infinite universes" although he is really talking about the universe bringing itself into existence before it existed, which is not logical.

If it is not necessary for "infinite universes" to exist, we should not venture down that road until it is necessary, as it has many problems along with it, first and foremost, if our universe was created, it just created an infinite chain of causes, which cannot stand to logic. Read the article in post #136 for why that is bad argumentation.

#143 | Posted by Sabbatai at 2010-09-02 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag

Poor response. At least show why you think it is not. Otherwise you are doing the same as you claim other people do when they don't really have an answer to something.

"Take an atom of anything. It is mostly Nothing."

You see, your problem lies with the fact that it is "mostly Nothing" rather than wholly nothing.

Therefore you still have something. Nothing indicates not existence. Not even a void, not even space, not even time. No number, nothing.

Sorry you can't grasp the different between "almost Nothing" and actual nothing or wholly nothing.

The something we live in came out of nothing all by itself...

the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

...a new book.

Never mind.

Let me guess, Cambridge turned you down for Steve's old job.

#31 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2010-09-02 10:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Good ole ZAT, as usual coming to the defense of one of his own. You make as many mistakes as hawking has in the real world, people stop listening. Good thing God invented labs so that the hawkings and zats of the world could go and play without consequence.

For one of supposed intellect, you are an infant.

Poor response. At least show why you think it is not. Otherwise you are doing the same as you claim other people do when they don't really have an answer to something.

#145 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

No, his response was idiotic. Discovering more planets does not equal Ocaam's concept of "multiplying necessities."

#149 | Posted by Sabbatai at 2010-09-02 04:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

I understand that you may think that, but you must at least give reason as to why it does not, and why it is idiotic. You can't just state it as such.

There are some who think that Scientists are much like Artists in that they are not "discovering" the Universe but they are helping to Create it.

#142 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-09-02 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"some" would be arrogantly wrong.

However, I would agree that some scientists are much like artists in that they are sometimes manufacture their own "meaning" in their "creations".

There are bad scientists just like there are bad artists. Hawking seems to be trending to the bad category. Not saying he isn't a genius, just that his scorecard has a lot of numbers in the L column.

Not saying he isn't a genius, just that his scorecard has a lot of numbers in the L column.

#151 | Posted by e_pluribus_unum

Take a group of people and show them a group of objects that are somehow related.

Anyone can talk about what is right there in a group for all to see.

Sometimes it takes a genius to discuss something that is missing from the group yet should be there or belongs there.

Therefore you still have something. Nothing indicates not existence. Not even a void, not even space, not even time. No number, nothing.

Sorry you can't grasp the different between "almost Nothing" and actual nothing or wholly nothing.

#146 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

No... what I am trying to tell you is that the concept of Nothing is actually Something. That concept was created by Man.

The problem with trying to describe the Universe is that the words we tend to use are just too limiting.

"some" would be arrogantly wrong.

as long as you include yourself in that group.

This is from Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, Harper
Torchbooks, New York, Harper & Row, 1958

You may have heard of him.

Quantum physicists ponder questions like, Did a particle
with momentum exist before we conducted an experiment to
measure its momentum? Did a particle with position exist
before we conducted an experiment to measure its position?
and Did any particles exist at all before we thought about
them and measured them? Did we create the particles that
we are experimenting with? Incredible as it sounds this is a
possibility that many physicists recognize

May the universe in some strange sense be brought into
being by the participation of those who participate?
The vital act is the act of participation Participator is
the incontrovertible new concept given by quantum mechanics
It strikes down the term observer of classical theory, the man who stands safely behind the thick glass wall and watches what goes on without taking part It can t be done, quantum mechanics says

Notice the date of this reference? This is old stuff now.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
C.S. Lewis

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
C.S. Lewis

I was at this time of living, like so many Atheists or Anti-theists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.
C.S. Lewis

Without God, there is no reason NOT to do what Stalin, Hitler, and Mao did. No, they did not believe in a God, other than themselves. Get what you can, when you can because we are all animals in that case.

I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.... It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

Dear C.S Lewis,

Just because YOU don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. The Universe may still exist for a "reason" but it doesn't HAVE to and if it does you may never find it. The fact that it does exist seems "reason" enough in my book being as how I am only here for 80 years or more or even less.

Our brain and therefore our reasoning has evolved way beyond the "accident" stage.

And there is one big difference between the mind of Man and an accidental splash of milk.

The accidental splash of Milk cannot even conceive of its own Existence much less the Jug that it came from nor its own Mortality in the Universe.

Get what you can, when you can because we are all animals in that case.

#158 | Posted by RIGHTPOLICY

I beleive that was ENRON'S corporate motto.

I've never understood why some people believe that without the existence of God there is no reason to lead a moral life. It seems like very shallow thinking.

I've never understood why some people believe that without the existence of God there is no reason to lead a moral life. It seems like very shallow thinking.
#161 | Posted by moder8

I find whether one believes or not to be irrelevent to living a moral life. And frankly, I find you to be a shallow thinker. Your ideology is as immoral as they get, yet you can't see it. And I'm not coming from the Right. That ideology is just as immoral.

Thank you Professor Hawking.

And frankly, Ray, I have always considered you to be among the most narrow minded and foolish posters on the DR. But hey, you can be a gold grubbing shill all you want. As for morality, HA! The greedy calling the comparatively selfless immoral. LOL

And frankly, Ray, I have always considered you to be among the most narrow minded and foolish posters on the DR. But hey, you can be a gold grubbing shill all you want. As for morality, HA! The greedy calling the comparatively selfless immoral. LOL
#164 | Posted by moder8

Yeah sure, to a parasitic predatory socialist it's immoral to make money honestly.

Liberalism is the ultimate form of morality Ray. Liberals are the driving force behind generosity and compassion in this country for those less fortunate. The right believes in taking whatever they can by any means necessary.

The right believes in taking whatever they can by any means necessary.

Posted by jackass at 2010-09-02 07:28 PM | Reply

Sounds more like anarchists to me.

Liberalism is the ultimate form of morality Ray. Liberals are the driving force behind generosity and compassion in this country for those less fortunate.
#166 | Posted by jackass

ROFLMA! They drained the poor and middle class, now they're talking about raising taxes (extortion) and expanding the money supply (counterfeiting) to pay their debts.

The right believes in taking whatever they can by any means necessary.

Yep, them too.

There are some who think that Scientists are much like Artists in that they are not "discovering" the Universe but they are helping to Create it.

What an elegant thought!

There is more to the Christian worldview than you imagine Goatman. It is not as simply as you paint it.

#26 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

and usually involves crazy and delusion. You people are fucking nuts. Period.

It is a fabrication by the remnants of the Roman Empire to maintain power and control over a fragmented empire that was spiraling towards a dark age.The weary and stupid looking for some leadership and redemption and the church leaders gladly took the money, built the cathedrals and enslaved millions "In the name of God". Once institutionalized, it becomes fact in the minds of the deluded.

Get over yourselves. God if existed, wouldn't make a creature so narcissistic to believe it is that important. You are an evolved ape with a big brain that has the ability to plan..

move along.

Liberalism is the ultimate form of morality Ray. Liberals are the driving force behind generosity and compassion in this country for those less fortunate. The right believes in taking whatever they can by any means necessary.

#166 | Posted by jackass at 2010-09-02 07:28 PM | Flag: Abusive, retarded

God if existed, wouldn't make a creature so narcissistic to believe it is that important.

#171 | Posted by Legio at 2010-09-02 10:13 PM | Flag: Doesn't know jack shit, might as well suck a dick and call it 'purpose'

I certainly think the bible is bonkers but this argument isn't all that convincing.

"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"=nothing created something=statement that doesn't make much sense.

Gravity doesn't seem to meet the criteria for an uncaused cause. How would gravity create matter? Where did the law of gravity come from? I always saw gravity as an intrinsic property of matter like inertia. And I have a problem with an infinitely old or large universe. Infinity is a useful mathematical concept but is not physically meaningful. Infinity as a physical concept doesn't make much sense-it is the product of our imagination. In physics it seems you are limited to pretty damn big and pretty damn old. But this unfortunately leads to other questions like if the universe is finite what is beyond it? I am young and people will still be asking these questions when I die so I will worry about something else.

There are also different kinds of infinite systems in mathematical. One is actually considered measurable, the other not considered measurable.

I just think it is funny when people like Legio and Ray and others come here with no argument and suggest they are correct because they are correct, or because something is "crazy".

People don't seem to understand that something causing the universe is not dependent on the Bible or any other holy book to any degree. That is a different discussion.

Whether God exists or not does not depend on religions that we know today, not holy books that we know today. It is unfortunate that so many dupes here at the DR are unable to take their own prejudices out of the discussion, always referring to crazy religions as proof that God does not exist, which is a non argument.

"There are also different kinds of infinite systems in mathematical."

#175 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-09-03 07:47 AM | Reply | Flag: idiot

Blah blah blah....did he answer the follow fundemental questions:

- which came first the chicken or the egg?
- why do you park on a driveway and drive on a parkway?
- why does sour cream have an expiration date? (it's already sour)
- why is the big 10 still called the big 10 with 12 teams?
- Same question for the big 12? (now has 10 teams)

Until he answers these questions, he is not qualified to render an opinon regarding how we were created.

Calling on a god or gods to help you out when you fail to wrap your brain around an idea is a very bad way to hide from the future.

I believe there is no afterlife. Assuming we escape childhood, we all get about seventy or so years to create ourselves in a manner that people from the future will remember us in a positive way.

Proud DFH, emeritus

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams

#179 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2010-09-03 09:09 AM | Reply | Flag: Is a fairy

I see you don't understand that if you see a garden, which is orderly and kept, someone had tended to it. You do have to wonder who tended to it.

If not, you are ignorant.

If not, you are ignorant.
#180 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Thanks! Coming from you, that's a freakin' compliment.

#180 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Are you trying to say the earth is a garden that is orderly and kept. If so you are clearly delusional. The earth and our bodies are rampant with disease, mutation and do not by any sense of the term work in an orderly and kept fashion.

"I see you don't understand that if you see a garden, which is orderly and kept..."

Tell me, seriously, do you see patterns in the clouds? Are the clouds really what those patterns -- a product of your brain attempting to discern order where there is none -- real? How is that any different from your view of the "garden"?

#176 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2010-09-03 07:50 AM | Reply | Flag: The real idiot...

#182 | Posted by richardspirit at 2010-09-03 09:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not talking about the earth, or directly equating it to a garden, but you cannot distinguish a garden from a field unless it is kept to some degree.

you seem to hate the idea that things are kept to some degree. Not my fault.

There is order, or are those universal laws not real? I guess there are no constants then?

Interesting.

#184 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

I dare you to say that again, but in your own words.

"Nigflot blorny quando floon."
- George Carlin

Interesting.
#185 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

No, not really, once you latch onto it.

#183 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2010-09-03 09:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Lets see... a garden, what is a garden? Do you mean field of randomly placed flowers interspersed with weeds and natural upgrowth, or do you mean something set on the side, in which the weeds or invasive plants that will choke out the desired plants are removed or minimized to some degree?

Don't take the comparison too far. Do you really see this comparison as to be 1-1, that is just your mind creating delusions in accord with what you want to see to help fit your paradigm of disordered thought.

#187 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2010-09-03 09:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Its not for you. But then again you do seem self centered enough to think it is.

You realize this is a blog, don't you? Open to the public? On which anyone accessing it may comment? Or are you so self-centered and just plain stupid that you think you're actually engaging in a private conversation?

I dared you to put a passage you brought here through cut-and-paste into your own words. Why? Because I don't think you have the faintest idea about the subject of that cut-and-paste. You're just trying to sound better informed than you are, but I can't imagine anyone falling for that. Original or even fairly imaginative thinking is not your forte.

"Lets see... a garden, what is a garden?"

Boy, that Doug Adams quote reall gotcha, didn't it? I'd suggest you ask him what he meant, but he's dead. In the end, it's a matter of interpretation and conjecture. In that, not at all unlike your "God."

Cantor defined two kinds of infinite numbers, ordinal numbers and cardinal numbers.

184 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-09-03 09:36 AM | Reply | Flag: Idiot posting another idiot.

Infinity means NO BOUNDARIES. Infinity is not a number.

I just think it is funny when people like Legio and Ray and others come here with no argument and suggest they are correct because they are correct, or because something is "crazy"
#175 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Yeah sure. It's all our fault you don't understand the meaning of Existence, Infinity, Myth and Superstition.

#190 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2010-09-03 09:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

1. Never claimed to fully understand all of the information behind the cut and paste

2. Sometimes (as you have shown) you use the information from someone else to show a point, given that they have studied that in more detail than you have or thought of it in different ways.

3. Zatoichi stated the idea of different kinds of infinite numbers in mathematics is stupid. I knew otherwise, thus I posted this information as I have come across the concept of cardinal and ordinal numbers in set theory.

4. I am not an expert on set theory, this is just to back up the claim that I made, giving evidence that the claim is not pulled from the air.

5. Some things are not easy to explain in other words, as they are complex ideas. I do not claim, nor will I claim the ability to more simply (and correctly) explaining what was stated here. I would hate to undermine the complexity of a subject just so that I could give some simplified meme answer to someone (like you do on many occasions.)

6. I am not self centered enough to think that other people would not respond to the post, but when someone is reference in regard to the post, I don't expect anyone else to comment some meme response to it without even being able to (a. grasp why it was stated in the first place (b. see its place in the argument (c. give any kind of reasonable response it and (d. act like an adult.

7. I realize that the DR is the wrong place to have the ideas held above, yet, unlike others here I do not have a fatalistic attitude and think that maybe someday, many of the people here will grow up and be able to understand complex thoughts and principles in and of themselves, without having to dumb them down for popularity points and laughs.

I meant Eric Cantor, you idiot.
~ ExpsRedumption

#192 | Posted by Ray at 2010-09-03 09:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

You seem to have no problem misunderstanding the concept of the universe and the fact that it had a beginning from "something" other than itself. Thus the universe is not "infinite". It can be "eternal" but it cannot at this point in science be "infinite".

I am also sorry that you dislike math and science, as they are the things that determine the claims you are making, whether correct or false.

It can be "eternal" but it cannot at this point in science be "infinite".

They mean the same thing. No boundaries means no boundaries in space and time. NO BOUNDARIES! Got that? I don't think so.

I am also sorry that you dislike math and science, as they are the things that determine the claims you are making, whether correct or false.
#196 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Duh. I majored in engineering.

I've beat this topic to death. Time to move on to other topics.

" I majored in engineering."

Posted by Ray at 2010-09-03 10:50 AM | Reply | Flag: bullshit

Don't stop now guys I want this thread to hit 200. =^)

#199 | Posted by richardspirit at 2010-09-03 11:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

*Poof*

200.

Ray, if you majored in engineering, then you would understand the transient nature of the use of infinite, especially in Mathematical number systems and sets.

If infinity is not a number, what is it?
What is a number?

Last time I looked they were both abstract ideas.

" I majored in engineering."

Posted by Ray at 2010-09-03 10:50 AM | Reply | Flag: bullshit

#198 | Posted by Zatoichi

He's probably telling the truth. I imagine he was an engineering major for all of two weeks.

As hawking says: "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," Well who created the law of gravity?

@#54
objectivity, according to #54, is apparently subjective and with prejudice, and, the bible is a secret code, understood by few, if any.

Yep, the universe spontaneously created itself out of nothing...happens all the time.

the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

This has been Spud's theory for years now.

Life, the universe and everything is in fact a massive equation.

All the energy used to bring about the Big Bang was in fact "borrowed" from the other end of the equation.

All energy is transmutable ultimately.

In a universe without light or matter one thing still exist.

Infinite possibility.

In an infinite universe where anything can happen it eventually will.

Certainly beats the shiat outta the "God always was" theory the religionists like to toss out.

Be Well.

In an infinite universe where anything can happen it eventually will.

Including the virgin birth, walking on water, and the Resurrection on the third day?

"In an infinite universe where anything can happen it eventually will."

Link, please.

C'mon Zed!

Anything but that!

Even with infinite dimensions and infinite possibilities, none of those things could ever happen. Everyone knows that.

In an infinite universe where anything can happen it eventually will.

I've always said that. Even the unimaginable number that expressredempion cited upthread (something to the 123 power. There are estimated to be 10^102 sub-atomic particles in the universe, so that number is a billion trillion times that) is a divide by zero thing when it comes to infinity. That number was used to bolster the argument, that god had to be involved because something with such overwhelming odds of happening, can't

Bullshit

If I pick up a handful of sand and throw it across the table, each grain will fall in a specific position in a specific orientation. One grain might be one angstrom further in one direction or oriented a fraction of a degree differently. Therefore, we have a different configuration.

How many times must we throw that same fistful of sand to get the EXACT same pattern with each grain in the exact same spot and oriented exadctly the same? The odds of that fistful of sand landing exactly like it did is so astronomical, god must've done it, right? Wrong. It had to land in one pattern or another.

Likewise in a multi-verse with infinite universes, one of them has to "land" in such a way that it supports life. And we are in it.

Link, please.

#207 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

ok now that was a FF!

Including the virgin birth, walking on water, and the Resurrection on the third day?

Well played.

Unexplained (or currently unexplainable) phenomenon certainly has occurred but the miracles you suggest are much more likely explained away as mythos, legends and fables than as as any real evidence of a Godlike being.

Link, please.

We live in a day and age where Paris Hilton is actually considered a celebrity entitled to her own show.

That may not be definitive proof that we live in a universe where anything can happen but it does tend to support Spud's theory.

Be Well.

#210 | Posted by donnerboy

;>)

we live in a universe where anything can happen

Pretty much the message of the New Testament.

Posted by Ray at 2010-09-03 10:50 AM | Reply | Flag: bullshit
#198 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2010-09-03 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

He's probably telling the truth. I imagine he was an engineering major for all of two weeks.
#201 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-09-03 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Another case of Big Science taking sides with Big Religion. I love the irony.

the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
This has been Spud's theory for years now.

That's what defines the belief in magic.

That's what defines the belief in magic.

#214 | Posted by Ray

people from the 1st century would call what I do magic...some people still think what I do is magic.

I work with electrons.

FM

Fucking Magic

Unexplained (or currently unexplainable) phenomenon certainly has occurred but the miracles you suggest are much more likely explained away as mythos, legends and fables than as as any real evidence of a Godlike being.

Of course, because it couldn't happen correct?

It either could happen, or it can't happen.

If it cannot happen, I can see your point.

If it can happen, it has to be applied as a reasonable resolution to the questions.

You cannot start with "God does not exist" and then say, see, god does not exist, because he does not exist.

I regard to rottingpotato:

5. The Ontological Argument from the Possibility of God's Existence to His Actuality
The last argument I wish to discuss is the famous ontological argument, originally discovered by St. Anselm. This argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others.46
Plantinga's version is formulated in terms of possible worlds semantics. For those who are unfamiliar with the semantics of possible worlds, let me explain that by "a possible world" I do not mean a planet or even a universe, but rather a complete description of reality, or a way reality might be. Perhaps the best way to think of a possible world is as a huge conjunction p & q & r & s . . . , whose individual conjuncts are the propositions p, q, r, s, . . . . A possible world is a conjunction that comprises every proposition or its contradictory, so that it yields a complete description of reality -- nothing is left out of such a description. By negating different conjuncts in a complete description we arrive at different possible worlds: I'll present the version of the argument as stated by Plantinga, one of its most respected contemporary proponents.
W1: p & q& r& s . . .
W2: p & not-q& r & not-s . . .
W3: not-p & not-q& r & s . . .
W4: p & q & not-r& s . . .
Etc.
Only one of these descriptions will be composed entirely of true propositions and so will be the way reality actually is, that is to say, the actual world.
Since we're talking about possible worlds, the various conjuncts that a possible world comprises must be capable of being true both individually and together. For example, the

proposition "The Prime Minister is a prime number" is not even possibly true, for numbers are abstract objects that could not conceivably be identical with a concrete object like the Prime Minister. Therefore, no possible world will have that proposition as one of its conjuncts; rather its negation will be a conjunct of every possible world. Such a proposition is necessarily false, that is to say, it is false in every possible world. By contrast, the proposition "George McGovern is the President of the United States" is false in the actual world but could be true and so is a conjunct of some possible worlds. To say that George McGovern is the President of the United States in some possible world is to say that there is a possible complete description of reality having the relevant proposition as one of its conjuncts. Similarly, to say that God exists in some possible world is to say that the proposition "God exists" is true in some complete description of reality.
Now in his version of the argument, Plantinga conceives of God as a being that is "maximally excellent" in every possible world. Plantinga takes maximal excellence to include such properties as omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. A being that has maximal excellence in every possible world would have what Plantinga calls "maximal greatness." Now Plantinga argues,
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

follow the rest of the argument here. It picks up on page 25 "5.1. Premise 1"

Pretty much the message of the New Testament

I missed that message, but it's good to hear that they got something right.

Anything can happen except getting into heaven if you don't give blind allegiance to some dude named Jesus.

Hey Ray,

Penzias and Wilson called.
They said your knowledge of cosmology is comparable to your knowledge of economics.
Nonexistent.

#218 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-09-03 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag: massive logic FAIL

Anything can happen except getting into heaven if you don't give blind allegiance to some dude named Jesus.

Jesus said that anyone who came to the Father first came through Him. It was a flat statement of function. Anything you attach to it beyond that is just you.

Penzias and Wilson called.
They said your knowledge of cosmology is comparable to your knowledge of economics.
Nonexistent.

How would they know? They are hardly cosmologists. They were engineers who specialized in microwave communications and serendipitously stumbled on the the CMB

Since Penzias and Wilson did their stuff FIFTY years ago we now have color pictures of the Big Bang.

Since Penzias and Wilson did their stuff FIFTY years ago ...

What? Scratch their heads and say, "Why can't we make this noise go away"? Penzias and Wilson are over-rated in the field of cosmology. If they had gone searching for the CMB and found it, that would be different. But they had it fall in their lap and were completely clueless as to what they were looking at

Jesus said that anyone who came to the Father first came through Him.

Actually Jesus said: I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Anything you attach to it beyond that is just you...

And here I thought you knew the Story!

But before you try again, spend a little more time knowing, uh, what the story actually was.

Actually Jesus said: I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Yup. The question is, when you have that long conversation with Jesus, and even ZAT will, what is He looking for? There's a lot of data to suggest He doesn't care about church membership.

He's going to be asking, I imagine, things like did you encourage Larry in his schooling or call him a dumbass for wanting to improve himself?

I am sure that it has been mentioned, but the title of the tread seems to be misleading.

Isn't old Four Wheels simply saying that we COULD exist without the existence of God?

That God may OR may not exist?

#223 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2010-09-03 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag: Still angry he was wrong about infinity and the differential terms in mathematics.

Actually Jesus said: I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Actually, someone else said that Jesus said. It's all hearsay.

Anyone else wonder why the 'Son of God' couldn't find a pen in all those 33 years?

What came first, the First Commandment or Jesus?

Sinner.

Anyone else wonder why the 'Son of God' couldn't find a pen in all those 33 years?

Sure. But I've learned enough to know that for many it wouldn't have mattered.

#233 | Posted by Manypaths at 2010-09-03 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well in regard to what Hawking states, his concept of existence takes place before you exist, so the question is up in the air. I would imagine that Jesus existed before the words of the first commandment were uttered or thought over.

It is one thing to believe in God. It is another thing to believe in Jesus Christ as God.
I don't mind reading discussions involving people who do and do not believe in God. But I can't stand discussions about the existence of God between literal followers Jesus as laid out in the New Testament and the rest of us who think it is ridiculous. It is like watching people banging their heads against a wall.

Penzias and Wilson called.
They said your knowledge of cosmology is comparable to your knowledge of economics.
Nonexistent.
#222 | Posted by Zatoichi
+
The observable universe is finite.
It is 13.7 +/- 0.1 billion light years in size and growing faster and faster.
#226 | Posted by Zatoichi

The key word is observable. That's a technological issue, dimwit. You ignored the Law of Conservation of Energy and the Law of Causation. Something cannot come from nothing, unless you're a Christian, a cosmologist, or believe in magic.

#236 | Posted by moder8 at 2010-09-03 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

If something such as God of any sort exists, it can possible effect our lives greatly. it would be wise to figure out how it might, and if it might, in which way it does.

#237 | Posted by Ray at 2010-09-03 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag: So I agree that the universe came from it's yet non-existent self.

It is one thing to believe in God. It is another thing to believe in Jesus Christ as God.

Deist vs. Christian.

One thing you can say about Deists, we at least pass the First Commandment test:

You shall have no other gods before me

To me, that makes every Christian a sinner.

If something such as God of any sort exists, it can possible effect our lives greatly. it would be wise to figure out how it might, and if it might, in which way it does.
#238 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Well, there you have it!
That's your assignment, your mission, your raison d'etre.
If you find yourself 2,000 light years from home, you're on the right track.
No need to hurry in reporting back.
Bye, now.

You shall have no other gods before me

To me, that makes every Christian a sinner.

#240 | Posted by Manypaths

According to certain ancient texts that is the real reason Lucifer rebelled was because he could not love man as he was instructed to love only G-d. It had nothing to do with pride but rather it was a test of obedience for which he was granted reign over the earth.

#237 | Posted by Ray at 2010-09-03 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag: So I agree that the universe came from it's yet non-existent self.
#239 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

What kind of bullshit gobbledegook is that?

But I've learned enough to know that for many it wouldn't have mattered.

#234 | Posted by Zed

But, we really don't care about them anyway so it doesn't matter, huh Zed?

#243 | Posted by Ray at 2010-09-03 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is what you are supposing to be true.

But I can't stand discussions about the existence of God between literal followers Jesus as laid out in the New Testament and the rest of us who think it is ridiculous. It is like watching people banging their heads against a wall.

Jesus was just trying to make it all a bit easier for everyone. Seems like it didn't work in your case. Don't worry, that'll be part of the Talk you have with Him. And, don't worry, He'll be understanding.

But, we really don't care about them anyway so it doesn't matter, huh Zed?

We'd just have endless debates about whether the text was really written by Jesus or some other Galilean of the same name. And if we settled that one, someone would just state none of it proves He was God, anyway.

"none of it proves He was God, anyway."

Well it doesn't. Sorry if logic interferes with your delusions.

which came first the chicken or the egg?

The egg came first. Birds evolved from lizards, lizards lays eggs, the first lizard that was feathery enough to call a bird came from an egg. -See evolution

My problem with a physical concept of infinity is when you plug in infinity into any equation, 99.99% of the time you get infinity. Most the rest of the time you get 0. Yes you can show me plenty of equations that converge towards infinity, but that is not the norm. So my problem with a physical infinity is the math tends to break down. Lets say there is an object in the universe with infinite mass and finite volume(otherwise we would be in it). If you calculated the gravitational force that this Big object applies to on any finite object in the universe any finite distance away from the Big object you get infinity. If you then calculate the the acceleration of all these finite objects in the universe you also get infinity. Since we don't observe every object in the universe moving the same direction at infinite speed, I'm guessing there is no infinite object in our (possibly but I doubt it) infinite universe. I find it much more likely that the universe is finite. And I would not be surprised one bit it science discovers that if you travel in a direction long enough you end up back in the same spot. And that sounds strange, but remember what early man would have thought if you told him if he traveled long enough in a straight line he would end up right where he started. It was a counterintuitive thought that our flat earth may be round. In might be just the same case with our flat universe turning out to be a....Torus? or something like that. Either way I like that better than reaching the "edge" of space. Do I have proof-hell to the no. But neither does anyone else.

I think hawking is smart enough to know he has no clue what happened, just like us, and I think he is smart enough to know that this will give him publicity and therefore money in book sales. Well played. Now adjust your out of date voice machine with something that makes you sound like barry white.

It is what you are supposing to be true.
#245 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

You are confusing me for Zombiehunter and Zatioichi.

It is like watching people banging their heads against a wall.

"debating" with Zed is always like "banging my head against a wall".

none of it proves He was God, anyway.

exactly!...which kinda makes this particular "God" seem awful primitive for a God...almost like He was made up by a primitive peoples.

Well it doesn't. Sorry if logic interferes with your delusions.

You pervert the meaning of the word delusion. It's often a necessary thing to do from a certain point of view.

exactly!...which kinda makes this particular "God" seem awful primitive for a God

People become convinced of God for an awful lot of reasons, sometimes more than one of them at a time. It's interesting to hear how they got to where they ended up. Many of them kicked and screamed on the way much worse than you're doing.

I knew it! No God! Fuck Yeah!

GUILT BE GONE!

Fuck The Ten Commandments!

GO SANTA AND EASTER BUNNY!

Sorry if logic interferes with your delusions.

Logic is just a set of rules, akin to grammar. I speak very well.

"People become convinced of God for an awful lot of reasons"

Same reasons people believed in Zeus or Jupiter or Thor or any other G-D. Are they all the same G-d? Are pagans really Christians? hmmm

Same reasons people believed in Zeus or Jupiter or Thor or any other G-D.

If you can get into the heads of the ancient Romans and Vikings quite that well, I've got a teaching job for you.

Are they all the same G-d?

The Romans dropped their old gods, as did the pagan barbarians, pretty damned quickly. They apparently answered that question.

#257 | Posted by Zed

No it tells me that eventually people will realize these silly tales are false and they move on. I just hope that society is finally evolving to no longer need the pacifier of religious practice.

Miracles cannot happen and anyone who says they can is not an honest reporter because miracles cannot happen and anyone who says they can is not an honest reporter because miracles cannot happen and.... ad infinitum.

No it tells me that eventually people will realize these silly tales are false and they move on.

I've seen a awful lot of people move on from where you are, RICHARD. They even used the same arguments.

As far as I'm concerned, I've got you halfway into church already.

I knew it! No God! Fuck Yeah!

GUILT BE GONE!

Not so fast! He didn't say there wasn't a God. He said one wasn't needed to start the Universe.

God will just jump to another Gap.

If you can get into the heads of the ancient Romans and Vikings quite that well, I've got a teaching job for you.

I can. What's the job?

Many of them kicked and screamed on the way much worse than you're doing.

#253 | Posted by Zed

I understand Jesus/God can usually be found in prison.

As far as I'm concerned, I've got you halfway into church already.

#260 | Posted by Zed

Again, you can live in whatever delusional world that you would like.

Arrogant and stupid. Those are a very unattractive combination Zed. Especially when attempting to persuade others of your theologic outlook.

Arrogant and stupid.

not a very good combination but it seems to be the case for a lot of Christians.

Especially Evangelicals.

Might be part of the same gene group that makes them "true believers".

God if existed, wouldn't make a creature so narcissistic to believe it is that important.
#171 | Posted by Legio at 2010-09-02 10:13 PM | Flag: Doesn't know jack shit, might as well suck a dick and call it 'purpose'

#173 | POSTED BY LIVE_OR_DIE

I will leave the dick sucking to you an insecure, narcissistic piece of pig shit.

I posted what I think and it must have hit home and rattled your paradigm. Fuck you meatbag.

Whether God exists or not does not depend on religions that we know today, not holy books that we know today. It is unfortunate that so many dupes here at the DR are unable to take their own prejudices out of the discussion, always referring to crazy religions as proof that God does not exist, which is a non argument.

#175 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

Thats because pieces of fruity shit like you state without fact or proof that anything like a supernatural being has ever existed and we are suppose to take it on "faith" it does. You fuckers take nothing on faith besides your crazy religion and somehow we are suppose to believe in a mythical being that lives in the clouds.

Eat shit dumbass.

I just think it is funny when people like Legio and Ray and others come here with no argument and suggest they are correct because they are correct, or because something is "crazy"
#175 | Posted by ExpsRedemption
Yeah sure. It's all our fault you don't understand the meaning of Existence, Infinity, Myth and Superstition.
#193 | POSTED BY RAY

nice one Ray.

Well--since we have gravity--why doesn't Mr. Hawking just create the universe from nothing??

Easy peazy....

always referring to crazy religions as proof that God does not exist

What makes a religion crazy? More importantly, what makes yours sane?

"what makes yours sane?"

Cause my momma said so. LOL

Determination by the laws of physics is less plausible than an extra-physical divine creator?]

What a hoot.

People from the 1st century would call what I do magic...some people still think what I do is magic.
I work with electrons.
FM
Fucking Magic
#215 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2010-09-03 02:01 PM

Fucking electrons!
How the fuck do they work?

Human beings just don't have the imagination.

I don't think that is the case. I suspect that every human culture through out time has imagined a supreme being that caused everything to come into existence. The problem that we face today is being imaginative enough, within a scientific context, to conceive of how something can be created from nothing.

Science can explain many (most?) of the feats previously attributed to God. And, as science progresses, all feats attributed to God might be explained. However, we haven't gotten there (yet?) and the one feat that seems like it might forever defy a scientific explanation is the creation of something from nothing. Even if such an explanation existed, it could never be proven because to test it would require the creation of another universe.

The problem that we face today is being imaginative enough, within a scientific context, to conceive of how something can be created from nothing.

Actually it's a case of being too imaginative to ask a question that has no answer. People commonly can't handle that emotionally, so they make up answers. That's why we see see both scientists and theists coming to common agreement that existence had a beginning. Pathetically, scientists threw out the most fundamental laws of physics to come to a conclusion extrapolated by mathematics. Maybe Western society is entering another Dark Age.

yes he did

That's why we see see both scientists and theists coming to common agreement that existence had a beginning.

If you're referring to the Big Bang theory as being the beginning, I have heard that some scientists are beginning to move away from that theory to suggest that there could have been multiple big bangs each of which bringing into existence a different universe i.e. multi-verses.

Another thing that complicates this discussion is the definition of universe. At one time, universe meant all that there ever was, all that there is and all that ever will be. Now that the concept of multi-verse has been introduced, scientists are left to ponder: how did the first universe come into existence?

I was just checking some other sites. Man the mythologists are crying and whining.
Someone is trying to unravel their fairy tale and they're so mad they're just stomping their little feet.

Who needs to stomp their feet??

Just take our gravity and create the universe Mr. Hawking.

oh sure...someone who could think that his condition like this man could be 'Gods fault' or something like that...noooooooooo that would never come into play as to his beliefs....of course not..

Arrogant and stupid. Those are a very unattractive combination Zed.

Most people are too polite to point out when you're both arrogant and stupid. You should thank God for that one.

I posted what I think and it must have hit home and rattled your paradigm. Fuck you meatbag.

That sums up an entire personal philosophy, doesn't it? The last three words, I mean.

Again, you can live in whatever delusional world that you would like.

I needed your permission? Well, thanks, then.

I needed your permission? Well, thanks, then.

#284 | Posted by Zed

Anytime! LOL

Conversations about this stuff always seem to end up with people yelling at each other about how smart they are, how dumb others are and how they know the meaning of life, the universe and everything. So let me just piss everybody off.

Asked an atheist once 'so how did the universe come into being? How does everything come from nothing?' There answer was 'probability'. That, to me, is waaaaay more fucking stupid than believing there's a guy in flip flops up in the sky who built everything in 6 days using parts he had laying around in his garage or whatever. Religious people: you're idiots. Atheists: you're idiots. Couldn't we just leave it at that and conclude we're all clueless however much we might think we're not?

#286 | Posted by redneckliberal

Ahh but then you'd be a Buddhist :)

Hawking is one of G-d's cruelest jokes IMHO

After reading the article I'm not so sure it was a joke.

Whether God exists or not does not depend on religions that we know today, not holy books that we know today. It is unfortunate that so many dupes here at the DR are unable to take their own prejudices out of the discussion, always referring to crazy religions as proof that God does not exist, which is a non argument.
#175 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

Thats because pieces of fruity shit like you state without fact or proof that anything like a supernatural being has ever existed and we are suppose to take it on "faith" it does. You fuckers take nothing on faith besides your crazy religion and somehow we are suppose to believe in a mythical being that lives in the clouds.
Eat shit dumbass.
#268 | Posted by Legio at 2010-09-03 10:59 PM

In my opinion (and with respect) I have to say that there are so many of these "believers" that there may have been something going on way back in the day.. something so extra-ordinary that it would easily have been mistaken for or identified as God or "superior beings". This impression has set a standard for human development that even to this day incites mass murder and inexplicable rationale.

Either we are an entirely insane species driven to moronic behavior based on nothing particularly genetically preventative of said abuses, or we really had God and Goddesses living among us, toying with humanity and perhaps even fighting among themselves as to our destiny.

Jeez, so f*cking sick of people expecting some kind of special respect because they 'believe' or have 'faith'. Big frickin' whup. I believe and have faith (probably in different ways) but what the hell? You don't see me here saying "now you treat me special cuz I believe stuff." Especially ironic being as most people who bang on about the importance of their own precious faiths are ready to trash anyone else's in a heartbeat. Religious people, atheists: both of you just shut up and fuck off!

At any rate, I've seen zero evidence of god in my lifetime, but lots of evidence of gravity. Invisible sky fairies without proof just doesn't satisfy my curiosity nor do they endure the rigors of the scientific method.

#21 | Posted by goatman

Excellent point.
"Sky fairies" are handy in controlling human thought/actions through guilt and fear.
They are also great reasons to justify hating others, take for instance the Abrahamic religions of the world. Complete lunacy, yet people still believe it?
They never question the source of those crazy desert dwellers who invented the nonsense.

At any rate, I've seen zero evidence of god in my lifetime, but lots of evidence of gravity. Invisible sky fairies without proof just doesn't satisfy my curiosity nor do they endure the rigors of the scientific method.
#21 | Posted by goatman

Excellent point.
"Sky fairies" are handy in controlling human thought/actions through guilt and fear.
They are also great reasons to justify hating others, take for instance the Abrahamic religions of the world. Complete lunacy, yet people still believe it?
They never question the source of those crazy desert dwellers who invented the nonsense.
#292 | Posted by Sluggo at 2010-09-04 09:33 PM

And with little evidence other than the entirety of the civilized world being completely lost and rebuilt, we can only presume there is nothing "unnatural" about the circumstances?! I wouldn't be so hasty to ignore everything indicating non-human intervention, especially how the story is purposefully utilized to control humanity - who somehow either enjoy it's thrall or are unwillingly drawn to it, imo.