Stephen Hawkins: Theists Are Cowards Who Are Afraid Of The Dark.

[suckmymuscle]

the big bang theory begins with a dense and hot state of mass energy, it does not explain where it came from, or how long that state existed before expanding. 

  This goes to show how much you know of cosmological physics. It is actually known almost precisely(down to decimal places) for how long the singularity existed before expanding. And it is known exactly what was it's composition one billionth of a second after it started expanding.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Shockwave]

lmao, cute attempt at trying to sound smart without understanding a word of my post.

Note the difference between saying #1 "For every object X, there is an Object Y, such that X is caused by Y" and saying  #2 "There is an object Y, for every object X, such that X is caused by Y". The 1st follows from the 2nd. The 2nd does NOT follow from the first. The cosmological argument seeks to draw 2 from 1 (since everything that exists has a cause (#1), there must be a cause for everything that exists (#2), and that cause is 'God'). Analogous to the mother example. Every person that exists has a mother (#1). It does NOT follow that there is a mother for every person (i.e. a "Super Mother) (#2). If There was a super mother, then 1 would follow. But 2 does not follow from 1. The Cosmological argument trades on an ambiguity.

The thing youre forgetting, is that if you go back far enough you more than likely can trace back to a single mother, lol.
I see what youre getting at, but your wording is poor. The way youre wording it DOES sound like its yes to both, as every person came from a mother, and there is a mother for every person. Now Im making the assumption you were getting at the fact that there is not ONE SINGLE MOTHER for every person that exists. Which, technically speaking their may be depending on how our species came together and how much inbreeding occured in the begining  

[suckmymuscle]

mass-energy can never be created nor destroyed.
virtual particles.

how is that law in any way compatible with that fact ?

 


and please, give me an example of how it would be possible to arrive at a "all encompassing universal theory of everything"  

  Not true. Mass can be created by quantum fluctuations of the zero-point field according to mathematical models of string theory that make valid predictions that can be tested and verified. And the fact that energy cannot be created in no way means it cannot have an origin explained by laws of pparticle physics that we don't know yet.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Shockwave]

  This goes to show how much you know of cosmological physics. It is actually known almost precisely(down to decimal places) for how long the singularity existed before expanding. And it is known exactly what was it's composition one billionth of a second after it started expanding.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Im not away of it, but how do they explain how singularity came into existance, where the matter came from or what formed it? And how do they determine how long the singularity existed before it started expanding?

[PJim]

The thing youre forgetting, is that if you go back far enough you more than likely can trace back to a single mother, lol.
I see what youre getting at, but your wording is poor. The way youre wording it DOES sound like its yes to both, as every person came from a mother, and there is a mother for every person. Now Im making the assumption you were getting at the fact that there is not ONE SINGLE MOTHER for every person that exists. Which, technically speaking their may be depending on how our species came together and how much inbreeding occured in the begining  

Shhh, are you with us or with Tdongz 

[polychronopolous]

Livin' the good life! 

[Shockwave]

Shhh, are you with us or with Tdongz 

Not really either, I believe that we as humans have no idea what or how the beginings of the universe happened, we can guess based on things that we observe, but its so far beyond our comprehension (at this time) that all were doing is guessing. Yes we can explain how the universe started expanding an when, but really were no closer to explaining HOW that matter came into existance. We can guess, that is all.

[gcb]

mass-energy can never be created nor destroyed.

virtual particles.

how is that law in any way compatible with that fact ?

 


and please, give me an example of how it would be possible to arrive at a "all encompassing universal theory of everything"  

Just because you don't understand the laws does not mean they are breaking down - there is not necessarily a god in the gaps.

We may never find the all encompassing theory of everything, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

[suckmymuscle]

Im not away of it, but how do they explain how singularity came into existance,

  This is the fundamental problem of cosmology, but there are theories that matter is "created" when branes from the timeless quantum field "collide" leading to stability which creates matter and with it the space for the matter to occupy - because one of the conditione sine qua non for matter to exist that there must be space for it to occupy.
 

where the matter came from or what formed it? And how do they determine how long the singularity existed before it started expanding?

  The matter didn't come "from" anywhere. By asking "from where?" you are assuming a place, which assumes the existence of space. Space and time only exists when matter is.

  As for how physicists know the amount of time the singulairty was compressed, I don't know what is the relevance of this question, but it was instantaneous since time appeared with matter(the singularity) and that amount of mass cannot be constrained within the space of a needle point.

  But the exact amount of time is a very good question, but assuming that all matter in the singularity appeared instantaneously, then it was trillionths of a second. Assuming that matter "gradually" appeared in the singularity, then the time would be variable as more matter would "bend" time and space as it were created.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[SomeKindofMonster]

I haven't read much of this thread but there are too
many people that have had experiences with the supernatural
(celebrity ghost stories for example) to negate the probability
that there is something beyond this life. There are probably
100's of millions of people that have had different experiences
and to completely negate the possibility of life after death
seems foolish.

[chess315]

I'm not sure that video is legit. In the past stevens went out of his way to avoid saying such things I think someone just voiced over that.

[disco_stu]

i had shoulder surgery and reacted to the anaesthetic and was clinically dead.

they put me in an induced coma and i came to three days later.

while i was dead i....





didnt remember or dream or know a thing...just went under, then woke up- three days later...didnt realise the hell my family went through and them talking to me, holding hands and so on...

so im thinking, when you die, its just lights out baby...nothing..nudda..n o trip down a tunnel..no lights..no afterlife...you are just worm meat.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

How wild would it be if Hawkins was some sort of AI experiment that died awhile ago but they loaded his brain with a computer to keep him alive?

[da_vinci]

so if i, or somebody, came up with a religion that was based around an incomprehensible god, limited the description of him to supernatural creator, and said nothing more...    then at that point you would accept it as a posibility, but not up untill that point?

I meant - you'd have NO idea of what the word "god" is if there was no religion (with a DOCTRINE, that EXPLAINS it). Ok, let's take a god without a religion. WHat's that? AN entity.....to believe in? Uh...that's it? What's about that?

by definition the supernatural is incomprehensible. does that not make sense to you? if not, why?

It's a logical falacy, called "Elephant in the room". Read upon it: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage

there certainly isnt. though if god does exist, god would certainly be a more accurate explanation, since it would be all encompassing

Oh really?? Just because there's a lack of data on a certain issue - it's somehow appropriate to take an indefinitely MORE complex explanation that hasn't been proven IN ANY WAY at all, as a "missing variable".? (that's basically what religious nuts do in every case when they can't explain something. It's an ACT OF GOD!!). Have you at least any idea what "logic" is, in this case?

science cant explain reality.

Science CAN explain reality, and it DOES, it's actually the only thing that does it siccesfully and is FULLY predictable and testable. I have no idea what are you talking about, by saying that, and I'm not sure you have it either..

fact. by the way, you keep asserting god is "insanely complex", and on what ground may i ask? how did you come to know this ?

SOmething that created EVERYTHING is a lot more difficult to explain (as the reality proves) then the evolution of the universe itself (which is explaineble perfectly).


So afterall - I have no idea what makes you (or anyone else) think that there "may be or IS something called "god" ". Could you elaborate? I personally have NO proof, not even remotely tangible one to even let that idea slip to my mind, aside that I've been lied to, like many people in some period during my childhood by people who were as clueless and afraid of death as many others..

[maxkane69]

This picture is the reason why he doesen't believe in God!

[asbrus]

define god?

biblical god, or just a thinking being responsible for creating the universe?

in either case, the definition of god still contains "the creator", and everyone who believes in such a thing also understands his existence to be incomprehensible.


if your asking me if god exists, fuck, i dont know if he does or doesnt.

but science sure as hell can not explain the universe.

But then where did that creator come from? Saying that it 'always existed' is just as plausible as saying that the universe 'always existed'. So in the end, all you're really doing is substituting one question (about the creator) for another one (about the universe), and creating an extra level of indirection, which would tend to violate Occam's Razor.

[Parker]

Scientists don't believe in a God, yet they treat everything this guy says as if it is the word of God.

Man has a worship complex, whether it be the Sun, public figures, mountains, rain, a volcano, a rock, Gods, a bird,Science, vagina, etc...

And then the authorities of such subjects are accorded "priesthood" or "prophet" status, and man hangs onto everything they say...

"I went to the mountaintop, and met the almighty prophet, he maybe ugly, bitter that he'll never walk again, or bend over the woman of dreams and give her doggystyle, and he might only talk thru a computer,
but I believe he is unbiased and his words are true and bring meaning....God doesn't exist, because he said so...never mind that nobody showed up for his Time Traveler's party"


The man has reached mythical proportions, one could say the proof that god exists is that he could become a great scientist and authority on his esteemed subject, yet if he were born during Hitler's time in Germany, chances are he would never have lived the life he has---or survived.
Had he been born in ancient Sparta, well you know the deal.
Sometimes we all need to count our blessings, from God or the society we live in.

[asbrus]

Scientists don't believe in a God, yet they treat everything this guy says as if it is the word of God.

N0T TRUE. N0T EVERY THING THAT HAWKINGS SAYS IS AGREED BY 0THERS IN THE SCIENTIFIC CIRCLE.

[deceiver]

lol @ tbombz talking about advanced physics as if he knows what he's talking about.  

yeah, he can't even grasp elementary level math... sure as hell he knows what he's talking about 

[Parker]

i had shoulder surgery and reacted to the anaesthetic and was clinically dead.

they put me in an induced coma and i came to three days later.

while i was dead i....



didnt remember or dream or know a thing...just went under, then woke up- three days later...didnt realise

the hell my family went through and them talking to me, holding
 hands and so on...

so im thinking, when you die, its just lights out baby...nothing..nudda..n o trip down a tunnel..no lights..no
afterlife...you are just worm meat.

sorry dude, your soul was still tethered to your body...
You were not dead...because if you were, you wouldn't be here to type what you just dead..."clinically dead", is not the same
as a shot to dome and one in the heart dead...
Then you are "motherfvcking dead".

[NarcissisticDeity]

you assert god would be complex.

why not simple?

hmmm...

seems you like to make guesses at things then pretend those guesses are facts..

the fucking irony of this statement.

[Mr. Magoo]

The thing youre forgetting, is that if you go back far enough you more than likely can trace back to a single mother, lol.
I see what youre getting at, but your wording is poor. The way youre wording it DOES sound like its yes to both, as every person came from a mother, and there is a mother for every person. Now Im making the assumption you were getting at the fact that there is not ONE SINGLE MOTHER for every person that exists. Which, technically speaking their may be depending on how our species came together and how much inbreeding occured in the begining  

actually the wording is correct. It's the common use of the english language that introduces the ambiguity. In logical form it appears clearly. I paraphrased exactly (the #1 and #2 statements) what the logical form would say if I could figure out how to type the universal and existential quantifiers.

[lovemonkey]

 Not true. Mass can be created by quantum fluctuations of the zero-point field according to mathematical models of string theory that make valid predictions that can be tested and verified. And the fact that energy cannot be created in no way means it cannot have an origin explained by laws of pparticle physics that we don't know yet.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

One of the main critiques of string theory is the very fact that the theory does not make any observable predictions. So you got that one wrong.

Predictions are not the be all, end all of science though. Evolution doesn't make any predictions for example.

[pillowtalk]

"physicists believe the universe is governed by scientific laws. these laws must hold without exceptions, or they wouldnt be laws. that doesnt leave much room for miracles... or god"



this guy understands that quantum mechanics is based on the idea that the laws of physics break down at the quantum level


and yet he says stupid shit like that


lol

 Actually, quantum mechanics allows physicists to make predictions with 99.98% accuracy on the behavior of particles. the laws of physics do not break down at the quantum level. The only discrepancy is integrating quantum mechanics with general relativity, but just because there is no working model now it doesen't mean there never will be. I think you should STFU before you embarass yourself more than you already did in that thread.

  And "this guy" know s athing or two more about than you about what happens on the quantum level even though he is a cosmologist. You are a nobody with a degree in anal plumbing.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Tbumbz, just goes from thread to thread making himself look a total cunt, WTF.
Is it some weird desire that you have to be seen as intellectual.
Mate, I have to tell you that if that is your motivation, you have FAILED in epic fashion.
You wade into these subjects, with zero working knowledge of the basics & make yourself look a dick every time I have seen so far.
Looking a total cunt is becoming pathological with you, you run at it with full speed, most odd.
Why do you do this Tbumbz?? What is your problem..............

PT

[Hurricane Beef !]

  Inspiring truth!

 

SUCKMYMUSCLE

THE BEEF would hate God if THE BEEF lived like that. No, wait, THE BEEF would never hate God.

THE BEEF