Notices
Non Scooby Related Anything Non-Scooby related

Stephen Hawking

Old Jul 5, 2012 | 01:55 AM
  #991  
Jimbob's Avatar
Jimbob
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,008
Likes: 0
From: Swansea
Default

Originally Posted by Bubba po
Space(time) is what came into being when the singularity expanded, according to the theory.

You have a failure of imagination, as do most of us, in that we can't visualise an explosion occuring except within a pre-existing space. The creation of space and matter in an instant was what the big bang was about.
Unless you subscribe to the multiverse train of thought, where our universe is just a bubble in a bottle of coke, at its most simple basic level.

But that brings up many many many many other questions.
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2012 | 09:52 AM
  #992  
JTaylor's Avatar
JTaylor
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Default

It's impossible to solve infinite regress from an atheistic starting point.
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2012 | 10:40 AM
  #993  
jonc's Avatar
jonc
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
Default

Originally Posted by JTaylor
It's impossible to solve infinite regress from an atheistic starting point.
And this is where God steps in.
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2012 | 10:50 AM
  #994  
JTaylor's Avatar
JTaylor
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Default

Originally Posted by jonc
And this is where God steps in.
Or turtles.
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2012 | 11:03 AM
  #995  
jameswrx's Avatar
jameswrx
Scooby Regular
20 Year Member
Liked
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,536
Likes: 42
From: Kent
Default

Originally Posted by _Meridian_
No, the space IS the Big Bang. It didn't expand into anything, because everything which existed was part of the BB. There was nothing outside it.
Still makes no sense.

A lot of what scientists say is just taken as a given.

"there was nothing outside it"

What's 'nothing'?
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2012 | 11:26 AM
  #996  
markb_s1's Avatar
markb_s1
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by LSherratt
Bollocks... What caused the big bang then? It came from something
.

Probably a bunch of scientists ****ing about with the Higgs Boson in a large hadron collider!
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2012 | 11:30 AM
  #997  
Leslie's Avatar
Leslie
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by zip106
Well done, Sir.
You've certainly got the Happy Clappers choking on their communion wine
I wonder how you can justify Hawking as being any more likely to know the real origins of it all than anyone else, scientist or a believer in an all powerful being.

Scientists are very good at producing strings of mathematical statements which always seem to have something missing somewhere so that they cannot call it a proof. They then drag out a name for the missing bits out of the air and expect us to assume that they are 100% correct in what they say. The impression one gets is that they are not absolutely sure that they have seen the famous Boson yet!

The fact is of course, no one knows for sure one way or another. It is as always down to the individual to decide on his beliefs. To be honest to yourself,you have to accept what you decide is the answer, or more like what it is most likely to be.

Running a person down because his beliefs are different to your own does not prove a thing except perhaps that you are not really certain of what you say is the answer and you feel that you have to bolster up your own ideas. All down to self confidence of course!

Les
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2012 | 08:20 PM
  #998  
Terminator X's Avatar
Terminator X
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
From: Berkshire
Default

Originally Posted by JTaylor
Yep, good program. Every part of my being expects future observations to demonstrate proof of an evolutionary, cyclic pregenesis. To me, it's simply intuitive; it feels right. I hope somebody then moves God outside of the cycle as an infinite pre-pregenesis, if only to give us something to discuss in NSR 2030.
Say that again?!

TX.
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2012 | 08:22 PM
  #999  
jameswrx's Avatar
jameswrx
Scooby Regular
20 Year Member
Liked
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,536
Likes: 42
From: Kent
Default

Originally Posted by Leslie
I wonder how you can justify Hawking as being any more likely to know the real origins of it all than anyone else, scientist or a believer in an all powerful being.

Scientists are very good at producing strings of mathematical statements which always seem to have something missing somewhere so that they cannot call it a proof. They then drag out a name for the missing bits out of the air and expect us to assume that they are 100% correct in what they say. The impression one gets is that they are not absolutely sure that they have seen the famous Boson yet!

The fact is of course, no one knows for sure one way or another. It is as always down to the individual to decide on his beliefs. To be honest to yourself,you have to accept what you decide is the answer, or more like what it is most likely to be.

Running a person down because his beliefs are different to your own does not prove a thing except perhaps that you are not really certain of what you say is the answer and you feel that you have to bolster up your own ideas. All down to self confidence of course!

Les
While I agree with what you're saying about the scientists leaving bits out, I'd much rather go with the evolution of the universe rather than an imaginary figure doing it all.

I could never have close friends with religous beliefs. It just creeps me out that someone can believe in god. If I insisted the tooth fairy was real I'd be sectioned, it's no more rediculous.

It's like the scientology thing, most people will tell you they're crackers but it's probably more realistic than the christian god.
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2012 | 08:27 PM
  #1000  
JTaylor's Avatar
JTaylor
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Default

Originally Posted by Terminator X
Say that again?!

TX.
Have a stab and we'll play hot and cold.
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2012 | 08:37 PM
  #1001  
jonc's Avatar
jonc
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
Default

Originally Posted by Terminator X
Say that again?!

TX.
Here, have a read. This might help you understand.
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2012 | 08:54 PM
  #1002  
zip106's Avatar
zip106
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,623
Likes: 1
From: ....
Default

Originally Posted by Leslie
I wonder how you can justify Hawking as being any more likely to know the real origins of it all than anyone else, scientist or a believer in an all powerful being.

Scientists are very good at producing strings of mathematical statements which always seem to have something missing somewhere so that they cannot call it a proof. They then drag out a name for the missing bits out of the air and expect us to assume that they are 100% correct in what they say. The impression one gets is that they are not absolutely sure that they have seen the famous Boson yet!

The fact is of course, no one knows for sure one way or another. It is as always down to the individual to decide on his beliefs. To be honest to yourself,you have to accept what you decide is the answer, or more like what it is most likely to be.

Running a person down because his beliefs are different to your own does not prove a thing except perhaps that you are not really certain of what you say is the answer and you feel that you have to bolster up your own ideas. All down to self confidence of course!

Les
I know you quoted me Les, but was that ^ aimed at me?

You know what - as much as I don't understand people who have a 'religion', I probably understand these scientists even less.

(this thread is very, very old btw...)
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2012 | 08:57 PM
  #1003  
zip106's Avatar
zip106
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,623
Likes: 1
From: ....
Default

Originally Posted by jonc
Here, have a read. This might help you understand.
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

That's just noise!
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2012 | 09:01 PM
  #1004  
Terminator X's Avatar
Terminator X
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
From: Berkshire
Default

Originally Posted by JTaylor
Have a stab and we'll play hot and cold.
I refuse to look it up however I have not a clue what pregenesis means ...

TX.
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2012 | 09:15 PM
  #1005  
jef's Avatar
jef
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
From: here, there, everywhere
Default

o.p's first post seems to have changed, what was the original question that people are replying to?
thanks
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2012 | 09:15 PM
  #1006  
Terminator X's Avatar
Terminator X
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
From: Berkshire
Default

Originally Posted by LSherratt
Bollocks... What caused the big bang then? It came from something
Think of it like a pendulum ... at one end you have the big bang, after that things speed up (bottom of swing) then it slows down to a stop. At this point everything runs backwards toward the big bang again albeit in reverse.

TX.
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2012 | 09:30 PM
  #1007  
JTaylor's Avatar
JTaylor
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Default

Originally Posted by Terminator X
I refuse to look it up however I have not a clue what pregenesis means ...

TX.
NIV - Genesis 1.*In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2*Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3*And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4*God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5*God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the first day.
Most mature, non-literalist Christians (and members of other faiths and traditions) would relate this (Genesis) to the big-bang. Hawking and M-Theory takes the starting point back to before big-bang in an attempt to deal with ex nihilo (something out of nothing) and I took some licence to describe this as pregenesis. That still doesn't satisfactorily answer the infinite regress question; hence pre-pregenesis or God. Jon's link is helpful in terms of illustrating how evolution, God (a creator) and the notion of multiverses can be pulled together.

Last edited by JTaylor; Jul 5, 2012 at 09:33 PM.
Reply
Old Jul 5, 2012 | 09:36 PM
  #1008  
zip106's Avatar
zip106
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,623
Likes: 1
From: ....
Default

Originally Posted by jef
o.p's first post seems to have changed, what was the original question that people are replying to?
thanks
It wasn't a question, as such.

More a flippant remark to a news story, that got many knickers twisted, but it's got to 33 pages over the last 22 months.

Is that a SN record?
Reply
Old Jul 6, 2012 | 07:19 AM
  #1009  
_Meridian_'s Avatar
_Meridian_
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,806
Likes: 1
From: Mancs
Default

Originally Posted by JTaylor
It's impossible to solve infinite regress from an atheistic starting point.


Bringing God (or gods) into it doesn't solve it either, just sidesteps the question. "God always existed" is not an answer to a scientific question, just a statement of faith. That is, taking something as a given on the basis of no evidence of any kind. Like believing in Santa or the Tooth Fairy.
Reply
Old Jul 6, 2012 | 08:14 AM
  #1010  
JTaylor's Avatar
JTaylor
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Default

Originally Posted by _Meridian_
Bringing God (or gods) into it doesn't solve it either, just sidesteps the question. "God always existed" is not an answer to a scientific question, just a statement of faith. That is, taking something as a given on the basis of no evidence of any kind. Like believing in Santa or the Tooth Fairy.
It's nothing like believing in Santa or the tooth fairy. Where you are right is in stating that ""God always existed" is not an answer to a scientific question"; that is quite obvious. However, the notion of a panentheistic, ineffable God does provide a philosophical answer to the philosophical question of what is the eternal animating force, primum movens, the source or the oneness that permeates all and has no beginning, middle or end. God is the only word (or its non-English equivalent) within human language that sufficiently describes the concept.
Reply
Old Jul 6, 2012 | 08:26 AM
  #1011  
dpb's Avatar
dpb
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 13
From: riding the crest of a wave ...
Default

hey , if it gets you through the day
Reply
Old Jul 6, 2012 | 08:30 AM
  #1012  
jonc's Avatar
jonc
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,647
Likes: 22
Default

Originally Posted by zip106
It wasn't a question, as such.

More a flippant remark to a news story, that got many knickers twisted, but it's got to 33 pages over the last 22 months.

Is that a SN record?
Not even close, the Apple trolling thread reached 44 pages in 5 months.
Reply
Old Jul 6, 2012 | 08:35 AM
  #1013  
urban's Avatar
urban
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,566
Likes: 1
From: Never you mind
Default

Originally Posted by JTaylor
Here's that moment.
You really went back and looked that up eh?
Reply
Old Jul 6, 2012 | 08:38 AM
  #1014  
Saint AAI's Avatar
Saint AAI
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by jameswrx

It's like the scientology thing, most people will tell you they're crackers but it's probably more realistic than the christian god.
I was thinking about this the other day, with the recent Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes breakup I was trying to explain to my girlfriend and her cousin that Tom Cruise was a Scientologist and that Scientology was a religion in which they think we are haunted by some alien spirits or some crap like that. Their reaction was that it is crazy and how can anyone believe in such crap? I agreed, but also said it's not really any different from believing in any other religion such as Christianity and if you think about it, Scientology is actually more plausible. It's only because society has had Christianity forced upon certain civilizations for well over a thousand years. If Christianity didn't exist and then all of a sudden some guy started banging on about it and building churches and years later Tom Cruise joined etc.... We would think it's just as crazy as what we think of Scientology now.

I believe religion started as an early form of law. Made up to try and get people to be good and live as decent human beings to be rewarded in the afterlife or face the consequences of an all seeing god. And also as a way to fob off natural disasters and such. It then didn't take people long to exploit this for money, power and greed.
Reply
Old Jul 6, 2012 | 08:40 AM
  #1015  
JTaylor's Avatar
JTaylor
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Default

Originally Posted by urban
You really went back and looked that up eh?
Yep. Completely lost on Les, though.
Reply
Old Jul 6, 2012 | 10:15 AM
  #1016  
urban's Avatar
urban
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,566
Likes: 1
From: Never you mind
Default

Fair play
Reply
Old Jul 6, 2012 | 10:29 AM
  #1017  
Frosticles's Avatar
Frosticles
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,245
Likes: 0
From: Sherwood Forest
Default

Originally Posted by Saint AAI
I believe religion started as an early form of law. Made up to try and get people to be good and live as decent human beings to be rewarded in the afterlife or face the consequences of an all seeing god. And also as a way to fob off natural disasters and such. It then didn't take people long to exploit this for money, power and greed.
+1
Reply
Old Jul 7, 2012 | 07:55 AM
  #1018  
_Meridian_'s Avatar
_Meridian_
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,806
Likes: 1
From: Mancs
Default

Originally Posted by JTaylor
It's nothing like believing in Santa or the tooth fairy. Where you are right is in stating that ""God always existed" is not an answer to


It's exactly like that with one difference - if you believe in God. The evidence for God and evidence for Santa are identical. The only reason why you think there's a difference is because you believe in one and not the other. But both are just superstition.
Reply
Old Jul 7, 2012 | 08:40 AM
  #1019  
JTaylor's Avatar
JTaylor
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Default

Originally Posted by _Meridian_
It's exactly like that with one difference - if you believe in God. The evidence for God and evidence for Santa are identical. The only reason why you think there's a difference is because you believe in one and not the other. But both are just superstition.
Ok.
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2012 | 01:07 PM
  #1020  
Leslie's Avatar
Leslie
Scooby Regular
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by jameswrx
While I agree with what you're saying about the scientists leaving bits out, I'd much rather go with the evolution of the universe rather than an imaginary figure doing it all.

I could never have close friends with religous beliefs. It just creeps me out that someone can believe in god. If I insisted the tooth fairy was real I'd be sectioned, it's no more rediculous.

It's like the scientology thing, most people will tell you they're crackers but it's probably more realistic than the christian god.
You are entirely entitled to believe what you personally believe is the answer to it all and that is just how it should be.

I personally would not decry a man for his own beliefs nor would I dislike him for having a different outlook to my own.

Les
Reply

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:49 AM.