"[S]uperstring theory ... is, so far as I can see, totally divorced from experiment or observation. If not totally divorced, pretty well divorced. They will deny that, these string theorists.
[T]here ain't no experiment that could be done nor is there any observation that could be made that would say, "You guys are wrong." The theory is safe, permanently safe. I ask you, is that a theory of physics or a philosophy?
There is today a disconnect in the world of physics. Let me put it bluntly. There are physicists, and there are string theorists."
String theory, on which Stephen Hawking's extravagant claim rests, is non-falsifiable. Hawking should buy a priest's collar so he can fit in with the other theologians.
One set of evidence that string theory is correct is that string theory, on it's own, produces all the equations of general relativity. If scientists knew nothing at all about relativity string theory would have revealed it in complete form. Therefore, experimental confirmation of special and general relativity implies that string theory is correct.
You don't need string theory to discredit theism. It does fine on its own. The amazing thing is that people think Stephen Hawking is saying something new; some novel riposte to the god hypothesis. The fact is that as an explanation for anything, god *sucks*. And as if that weren't bad enough, there is no way to connect such a hypothetical deistic god to the god of any major religion currently extant. Which is why atheism is growing so fast. Anyone want to come over to the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist? You'd be very welcome :-)
Interesting panel discussion. The important point that a deity isn't necessary for the universe to exist did get through the jumble of baloney, I think.
It's also interesting how Deeprok Chopra keeps being called upon as an expert on religion. His "religion" is basically made up.
I'm just a dumb Christian who hasn't read the book so I have to ask, Is Hawking saying that God isn't necessary for this universe to come into being because this universe came from an infinite regress of former forms of matter / universes?
Is that what he's saying?
Is he saying that: . Matter has always existed? . There CAN be an infinite regress of cause?
Or if there can't be an infinite regress of cause, is Hawking saying that somewhere in the distant, distant past matter / energy brought itself into being?
He believes that our universe along with others was created out of nothing by quantum fluctuations:
"We are the product of a quantum fluctuation in the very early universe." P 139
"Quantum fluctuations lead to the creation of tiny universes out of nothing. A few of these reach a critical size, then expand in an inflationary manner, forming galaxies, stars, and, in at least one case, beings like us." p. 137
I'm not sure how he defines nothing though because in the same chapter he states that in the early universe there are 4 dimensions of space and none of time:
"In the early universe - when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory - there were effectively 4 dimensions of space and none of time." P. 134
He seems to state that time is a dimension of space in the early universe:
"The realization that time can behave like another direction of space means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning." p. 134.
Thesauros said... "He hasn't resolved anything. He's just used a catchy line "God isn't needed" to push sales of his book."
Hi Mak, do hope you and your wife and family are all well.
With what you said above ,you mean kind of like the catchy line "God is needed" that in the past helped faith book writers to push sales of the holy faith books :)
Atleast if the cause is Quantum fluctuations ,or vaccum ,or gravity or what ever it might finally be found out to be.
Because its a factor thats not about any "lifeforce" or "being" with its own "conscience" etc.
Then that in itself would become a little more understandable, and help explain and even fit far better! with the fact why we honestly dont actually even see sign of any superhuman "lifeforce" or omnipotent "being" with any "concience" at work in our universe.
At present we have faithful folks who make all manner of assertions anyway, about all their ideas of the many different Gods, that have long pushed the sales of their holy books and Bible and Qurans etc.Along with use of fear tatics about heaven and hell or whatever else they decided and asserted on us, that then also enabled those folks to form many special sub faith groups of subjection and seregation and even apply pressure to try and get certain folk to bow down to their authority and conform.That has also been whats helped lead to ability of some of those ruling these groups to get away with ways of sexually abusing children etc.And much much else thats often been horribly nasty
So Mak , what makes you more worried about this Hawkings fellow hawking his book.You say Hawking hasnt resolved anything.But how can Hawking book be any worse for humanity, than the continued hawking of faith books of such faith assertions, that also sold plenty and caused a whole lot of trouble along the way with it.
Tell me Mak .Do you see Hawkings book seperating families and causing so much trouble and opression and segregation and human abuse etc like all the holy books have?.
String theory, on which Stephen Hawking's extravagant claim rests, is non-falsifiable. Hawking should buy a priest's collar so he can fit in with the other theologians.
That's what basically another physicist (a naturalist himself) says as well:
'The book is short (about 100 pages of actual text, interspersed with lots of color graphics and cartoons), and contains rather little substantive science. There are no references of any kind to any other sources. The discussion of supersymmetry and M-theory is often highly misleading....I’m in favor of naturalism and leaving God out of physics as much as the next person, but if you’re the sort who wants to go to battle in the science/religion wars, why you would choose to take up such a dubious weapon as M-theory mystifies me. A British journalist contacted me about this recently and we talked about M-theory and its problems. She wanted me to comment on whether physicists doing this sort of thing are relying upon “faith” in much the same way as religious believers. I stuck to my standard refusal to get into such discussions, but, thinking about it, have to admit that the kind of pseudo-science going on here and being promoted in this book isn’t obviously any better than the faith-based explanations of how the world works favored by conventional religions.'
@ Gandolf - Hello! My wife is doing much better. Thank you for asking.
As to religious people hawking their wares and using catchy "God did it" lines to do it, you're absolutely right. As to damage being done to communities and families being damaged by Christians using their "holy book" to beat people with it - again, guilty as charged.
But that's not the point of my statement. Let me use a comment from someone else on a different blog.
“It strikes me that Hawking is trading on his reputation as a scientist to make a non-scientific claim.”
"The fundamental problem is that simple versions of the string theory unification idea, the ones often sold as “beautiful”, disagree with experiment for some basic reasons. Getting around these problems requires working with much more complicated versions, which have become so complicated that the framework becomes untestable as it can be made to agree with virtually anything one is likely to experimentally measure. "
When your theory disagrees with the experimental evidence and in reaction you water it down so much that that it predicts just about anything you no longer have a theory and you are no longer doing science.
What is really happening in my opinion is that the atheist ideology of the people involved is driving the science rather than the other way around as it should be.
Peter Woit's main thesis is that the academic environment of publish or perish" combined with other factors are driving an over commitment to string theory and pushing out competing ideas.
As an agnostic who argues against atheism, which I see as a political ideology, I would rather people just admit "We don't know". But militant atheists won't allow that because they have an emotional commitment to a political agenda.
All I'm saying is that there is one piece of evidence that gives it some likelihood. If scientists knew nothing at all about relativity, string theory would have revealed relativity in complete form. Therefore, experimental confirmation of special and general relativity implies that string theory is correct.
Brenda, do you actually believe Hawking's ought to buy a priests collar? What deity would he be advocating? How is he a theologian? Is every form of poor reasoning ( or science) simply a form of theology?
Brenda, do you know what the definition of atheism is? I suspect not. It certainly is not associated with politics. Do you think there are some atheists who admit to not knowing certain things? Or do you group all atheists together? Also, do you think theism and atheism are at some sort of epistemic parity? If so, why does it seem to be the case that you only argue against atheists? Do you argue with theists on other blogs?
"If everything has to have a cause, nothing can be the first cause"
It's: . Everything that "Begins To Exist" has a cause. . Everything that begins to exist has an explanation of it's coming into existence.
To say, "When did an eternal Being begin to exist" is pretty silly - no less silly than "What caused an eternal Being to begin to exist."
Even the brightest that atheism has to offer, or at least he thinks he's the brightest - Richard Dawkins has asked such profoundly incoherent questions.
"What is really happening in my opinion is that the atheist ideology of the people involved is driving the science rather than the other way around as it should be.
Peter Woit's main thesis is that the academic environment of publish or perish" combined with other factors are driving an over commitment to string theory and pushing out competing ideas."
"It's just as silly for you to incoherently pretend to know if eternal beings exist."
Well, either matter is eternal or the cause of matter is eternal. We know that matter cannot be eternal so . . .
Either matter can bring itself into existence or an eternal cause brought matter into existence so . . .
We know that the cause of the universe was not "natural" since nothing natural existed until the Singularlity so . . .
As far as Dawkins being the best one to represent atheism, I'd ask for your suggestion but I'm afraid you'd say John Loftus and then I'd have to be physically ill right before going to bed :-)
Thesauros, I'm guessing you do not know much about the philosophy of religion. An intro course may help you discover much better defenders than Dawkins. Ill name a few semi popular ones: Paul Draper, Graham Oppy, Richard Gale, John Schellenberg, Gregory Dawes, Quentin Smith, Jordan Sobel, Michael Martin, Raymond Bradley, Theodore Drange, Nicholas Everitt. I think that is a decent list of some contemporary defenders of non-theistic worldviews. Also, while I do not think Loftus is the best defender of atheism, I think he should be regarded as an important opponent of Christianity. I think debunking Christianity is his main focus, not proving something like metaphysical naturalism to be true. His knowledge of Christianity seems to be vast, and from what I've seen, some Christian philosophers of religion do not nearly compare to his level of expertise, which is kind of odd.
Brenda said.."As an agnostic who argues against atheism, which I see as a political ideology, I would rather people just admit "We don't know". But militant atheists won't allow that because they have an emotional commitment to a political agenda."
Brenda you tell the theists to quit their guesswork.If theists didnt commit all this guess work about Gods, then we wouldnt have many of these kind of problems.
Try and get more theists to admit "We dont know"
Its very important other theorys do get aired !, if nothing else, for the very reason, to show the whole world in fact there could be other possibilitys!.
We really dont need so many hell fearing, charisma ridden devoted theists, domineering our planet ,with the scepticism and deep thought ability part of their brains all half shut down.Running around like zombies chickens nodding their heads to the demands of the whack-job priests,some who decided to burn Qurans ,at a highly volitile time! when elsewhere even threat of atomic war is also growing and fast becoming another threat worth worring about.
Whether Hawking be right or wrong,or this is only theory.In my opinion, its about time more people start airing and considdering there might in fact be other possibilities !,so more might listen to what you said, and admit! yes "We don't know".Because at the moment far to many have had their "minds manipulated" by faith, to think "they do know".
So much so, some folk will even blow themselves and others up, for faith.Others will burn books in revenge! matches over it.Elsewhere fear stops mass sexual abuse being exposed.Idiots who dont know!, think they do know,and with devoted brains half shut down, "vote with the faith brain flow" , trying their zombie best to stop new medical research, such as stem cell etc.
Most atheists are not the ones you really need to be convincing we "dont really know" for absolutely sure yet.Many of them are already agnostic , other than being atheist! through seeing little "real evidence" of any Gods at all.Many folks are atheist about tooth fairys that way as well.
Why the feeling you need to try and covince atheists we might "not know" yet ? .This is what many atheists have been trying to say all along.
It seems to me maybe you have a special personal dislike of Haawkings or something.Or you might be a theist dressed up as a agnostic.
Its only my "theory" mind you .Totally unscientific! of me .. tut tut
Thesauros said... "@ Gandolf - Hello! My wife is doing much better. Thank you for asking. "
You are welcome.Glad to hear that your wife is doing much better Mak.
You said.."But that's not the point of my statement. Let me use a comment from someone else on a different blog.
“It strikes me that Hawking is trading on his reputation as a scientist to make a non-scientific claim.”
That's all I'm saying."
I understand.But still whats wrong with people suggesting theorys, so maybe more people might start to understand and realize there just might indeed be other possibilities Mak?.
Why should theists lay claim to "owning the right" to suggest any theorys?.
Seems anybody else dare do it.And folks suggest they need to wear a priest collar if they do.
Whats wrong with suggesting possibility of other theorys, so maybe more folk start at least considdering their theist "theory" could even possibly be wrong.
We could do with it.Might be helpful to help soften some fundy types attitudes ,westboro baptist and the like etc.
When its obviously not so obvious whether Gods do actually exist,whats so wrong with pointing that out!, by suggesting other theorys could also possibly exist.
Thesauros said... "To say, "When did an eternal Being begin to exist" is pretty silly - no less silly than "What caused an eternal Being to begin to exist."
Mak why is this silly?.We dont even know for sure if there was an "eternal being".
Just because folks have theorys maybe one existed, doesnt prove it did.
If an "eternal being" existed ,what do you suppose this eternal being might have did with all his "eternal time" long before he bothered to decide creating the universe?. Played tiddly winks or snakes n ladders?.
If it was such an eternal being living right throughout all eternity.And if the universe is say estimated about 13-20 billion years old or what ever and the earths about say 4.5 billion years old or what ever.
What did this eternal being do with all the rest of his eternal time!, before that?.
Its not just a silly question asking what caused and eternal being to exist.Because if he was eternal and it doesnt seem like the universe or earth was,what was this eternal being up to all the eternal years long before he decided to create a universe.Why suddenly decide to create when he did,why not decide to create long before he decided to?.
If the eternal being doesnt need a cause.Was he just like some thoughtless concience floating around in lots of nothing ,thinking of doing nothing for eternity,long before, all of a sudden finally deciding to think of doing something?.
Why suggest and eternal being doesnt need a cause.How can you even be so sure of it?.You dont even know for sure, exactly how eternal he was do you?.
Dawkins is not totally stupid.For one thing! he is very correct!,faith has nastily abused many young children with manipulative fear tatics about a supposed place called hell.A place that is really only a theory!, and has yet to be even proved to honestly exist.
Some of these nasty people have been like faith terrorists.Like the abusive Taliban of young childrens nightmares.
Ryan M said of me (blush): Also, while I do not think Loftus is the best defender of atheism, I think he should be regarded as an important opponent of Christianity. I think debunking Christianity is his main focus, not proving something like metaphysical naturalism to be true. His knowledge of Christianity seems to be vast, and from what I've seen, some Christian philosophers of religion do not nearly compare to his level of expertise, which is kind of odd.
I specialize in all things Christian, yes, you're absolutely right about me.
Yes, and his knowledge of and experience with Jesus - zero - nevertheless, thank you for the references. You know how it is with us unschooled Christians. We need all the help we can get. =======
"by suggesting other theorys could also possibly exist."
If it was put as tentitavly as you word it I wouldn’t have a problem.
However, each and every one of the following Atheist Origin of the Universe Mythologies have been presented as fact and then when shown as unworkable, “Oh I guess not.” “Oh I guess not.” “Oh I guess not.” Oscillating universe -
Baby universes -
Multi verses -
The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario -
The Chaotic Inflationary universe - Brane-cosmology -
Inflationary multi-verse -
Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum -
The many worlds -
The black hole -
Quantum gravity models -
Vacuum fluctuation models -
Imaginary time and imaginary space - =========
"To say, "When did an eternal Being begin to exist" is pretty silly - no less silly than "
Mak why is this silly?
I should have used the word “cause” instead of Being.
To be eternal, in this context, means to have never NOT existed. To exist outside of time.
My friend who was earlier suggesting I take a philosophy class should know that either matter has always existed or the cause of matter has always existed.
That is because the material infinite does not and cannot exist.
To ask when something eternal began is incoherent. To ask what caused something eternal to begin is incoherent. ========
“what do you suppose this eternal being might have did with all his "eternal time"”
Prior to matter / energy / space / time coming into being at the Singularity, time did not exist.
What this Cause was doing is immaterial to this discussion. As is the rest of your comment, with priests abusing children etc. The things you mentioned are serious topics no doubt, but respectfully Gandolff, they are off topic for this discussion.
Thesauros said "To be eternal, in this context, means to have never NOT existed. To exist outside of time. "
and then "Prior to matter / energy / space / time coming into being at the Singularity, time did not exist."
He really works overtime is his conjecture and speculation that all matter and energy but the eternal being is subject to space and time. His toil proves nothing. He still has an "uncaused" cause, and absolutely zero hard evidence of his conjectures.
Brenda, how old is that quote? It was true until relatively recently that string theory was non-falsifiable, but that is no longer the case. In fact if the Large Hadron Collider fails to find the Higgs Boson, at least part of string theory will have to be re-worked.
Thesauros said... "What this Cause was doing is immaterial to this discussion. As is the rest of your comment, with priests abusing children etc. The things you mentioned are serious topics no doubt, but respectfully Gandolff, they are off topic for this discussion."
Hi Mak.With all due respect,its only off topic if you prefer to try and excuse yourself from discussing it.Which is fine,i understand you not likeling to discuss these matters,just as i understand popes prefering to try to cover up sexual abuse in their churches.
But the fact is when these things arise from groups of people who guessed about Gods,it has got to do with this subject in my opinion.And anyway it was you that first discussed Dawkins, why hurl abuse at him if and call him totally hopeless if you dont want to discuss it fair and square.
Mak if you want to be treated with some kindness respect and decency remember to try to extend that trait toward others also.If you personally hate certian people,how do you suppose they should get to feel the opposite.
I understand you wish you had said cause,but my point is about how its not obvious a supreme being has been involved in matters.Even though folks of faith with their theorys,have forced them upon us and this abuse has been all part and parcel of whats been the result.So in that sense its got every importance to this discussion.And goes right back to what i said about how likely is it Hawkings theory claim will be as harmful as what God faith theorys have been.
Highly unlikely i suggest.And quite possibly it would have been best if more of these non superstitious theorys got aired more to help more people consider them.As it might have helped lesson the abuse brought on by belief of the many Gods and supreme beings etc.
But the fact is there was a time when it might have even got you tortured and/or slaughtered for even daring to have such theorys.
So Hurrah ! for Hawking! for having the guts ! to at least dare speak his mind about these matters.About time more people! do all start at least thinking and considdering more about all these other possibilitys also.
Bossy God theorys have forced! their way into demanding! centre stage for far to long now,with terrible nasty disastorous outcomes!.
So what if he`s another one thats wrong again.Cant be much worse than all the extreme wrong caused by all the different God theorys.
Do you want to admit that?.Or would you prefer i respect that you would rather prefer! not need to think about it.
Mak i do still respect "you" for many reasons, even if i cant respect your faith,but try to understand respect is something that most people feel needs to be somewhat like a two way street, if its going to happen.And Dawkins and Loftus are both human too, even if you dont agree with everything about them.
“With all due respect,its only off topic if you prefer to try and excuse yourself from discussing it. Which is fine,i understand you not likeling to discuss these matters,”
Gandi, I don’t have any problem talking about the wrongs that I or any other member of the Christian faith have perpetrated on others. I just don’t see the connection with string theory. ==========
“Mak if you want to be treated with some kindness respect and decency remember to try to extend that trait toward others also.”
I don’t really care how you treat me but you’re right, I shouldn’t be so snarky to others. ==========
“I understand you wish you had said cause,but my point is about how its not obvious a supreme being has been involved in matters.”
Actually, when you come to see that the material infinite cannot and does not exist, that matter / energy / space / time were brought into being - no - HAD to have been brought into existence from something that is transcendent AND prior to those things - and then - if you consider what the cause must have been like (we can discuss that if you like), you’ll come to see that the Cause possesses the exact same attributes that we use to describe Creator God. =========
“So what if he`s another one thats wrong again. Cant be much worse than all the extreme wrong caused by all the different God theorys.”
So you think that it’s the theories themselves that cause the abuse - not abusive people using religion or politics or boys / girls clubs etc. etc. for their own evil ends?
Gandi, did you see on the news just a week or so back where police found a “Manual for Abuse” or some such thing? And in the manual the paedophiles who made the Manual listed good places for other child molesters to find children - Church was just one of the places recommended. Are you going to allow the molesters to go free and blame the Church or minor sports or kids clubs or whatever agency these people use to perpetrate their evil instead?
I wish I could hear sometime how you’ve been hurt by the Church. It must have been terrible for your thinking to be so skewed in order to think:
Bad Christians equals proof for No God.
I truly am sorry that religious people have hurt you but that has no bearing on the truth of what Jesus taught. Bad Christians have no bearing on how matter came into existence.
Thesauros said... "I just don’t see the connection with string theory."
Fair enough Mak
Mak said.."I don’t really care how you treat me but you’re right, I shouldn’t be so snarky to others."
Yeah well sometimes! your attitude washes off pretty good on me too Mak.I know you enough to realize mostly your hearts in the right place anyway.You take care of some disadvantaged children,i like that kindness.Even though maybe i wish you didnt dislike Dawkins or Loftus so personally.
I treat people a little badly sometimes too! Mak, you already know that!.But we humans all have our ways of rubbing off on each other ,sometimes good,sometime bad.We need to try and remeber it takes two to tango.
When we do,we find our game often gets played more fairly on both sides.
But still playing fairly doesnt just equal not ever being simply honest about matters though.And Dawkins is correct its abusive "young kids" get threatened with hell,specially when hell is not even been proved.Thats terrorism.
Mak said.."Actually, when you come to see that the material infinite cannot and does not exist, that matter / energy / space / time were brought into being - no - HAD to have been brought into existence from something that is transcendent AND prior to those things - and then - if you consider what the cause must have been like (we can discuss that if you like), you’ll come to see that the Cause possesses the exact same attributes that we use to describe Creator God."
Well maybe.But im not so sure that means we should simply assert Gods as the answer.
Mak said.."So you think that it’s the theories themselves that cause the abuse - not abusive people using religion or politics or boys / girls clubs etc. etc. for their own evil ends?
Gandi, did you see on the news just a week or so back where police found a “Manual for Abuse” or some such thing? "
Hey Mak you wont find me promoting any book that promotes abusing people.I dont have any special personal agenda of persecuting faithful folks.Infact i have some understanding of how some of them came to be who they are,and realize its not all their fault when these harmful distructive manuels exist that mislead them.And so i try not to personally condemn them,even if others do.But yes in my "opinion", lots written within all these faith books havent really honestly been helpful.
Mak said.."to think:
Bad Christians equals proof for No God.
I truly am sorry that religious people have hurt you but that has no bearing on the truth of what Jesus taught. Bad Christians have no bearing on how matter came into existence.
At least I sure can't see the connection."
Mak i dont condemn Jesus either .And its not just action of some Christians, what makes me atheist.Although if people claim guidence of holy spirit,should show sign of it if its indeed a honest claim.But most often i feel i see the complete oposite.
But the fact is ive tested it myself with honesty.Ive felt no effect,and neither seen any sure honest sign of God.
Sure people say faith is what it takes.Just believe.Only believe.
But people can do that and end up believing in absolutely anything Mak.Which is why we also have the Ghost believers,Hindu believers,Islam believers,Satanists etc etc .
I keep my mind open to sign of Ghosts,Devils,Gods,Trolls,and anything that there might appear some honest sign of existence.
Gods being omnipotent and smart surely should have realized humans needed a good supply of evidence if they wanted humans to know exactly who to follow.
Otherwise without a continuing flow! of good evidence always being made available, we are left wide open to trickery and bad decision making and foolery.
With regards to the bad effect faith had on my life.Thats part of life while people promote these faiths the way they do as being complete truth.If as many people promoted pedofile books the same way,the problem would be widespreadly promoted also.
"If scientists knew nothing at all about relativity, string theory would have revealed relativity in complete form. Therefore, experimental confirmation of special and general relativity implies that string theory is correct."
Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. It assumes that string theory can be *deduced* from relativity and that there are no other theoretical frameworks that could also possibly explain observation. It is exactly this claim that is in dispute. You are begging the question.
Ryan M said... "do you actually believe Hawking's ought to buy a priests collar?"
Sure.
"What deity would he be advocating?"
Science
"How is he a theologian?"
He reifies an abstract theoretical framework to the status of a deity.
"Is every form of poor reasoning ( or science) simply a form of theology?"
No.
Ryan M said...
"Brenda, do you know what the definition of atheism is? "
Yes, atheism is the assertion that the proposition "God exists" is false.
"It certainly is not associated with politics."
Please review the history of the 20th century for copious counter evidence.
"Do you think there are some atheists who admit to not knowing certain things? Or do you group all atheists together? Also, do you think theism and atheism are at some sort of epistemic parity?"
Yes, it depends and yes.
"If so, why does it seem to be the case that you only argue against atheists? Do you argue with theists on other blogs?"
Confirmation bias and yes but not recently.
Gandolf said... "If theists didnt commit all this guess work about Gods, then we wouldnt have many of these kind of problems."
I think we'd have exactly the same problems we've always had only they'd be given different names and be done by different people.
"We really dont need so many hell fearing, charisma ridden devoted theists"
Strawman argument.
"Why the feeling you need to try and covince atheists we might "not know" yet ?"
In order to find out what my beliefs are. We only discover who we are by bumping into each other. If I only spoke to those with whom I agree I would never grow.
"It seems to me maybe you have a special personal dislike of Haawkings or something."
Benfea said... "Brenda, how old is that quote?"
Really? You are serious asking this? Is your arm broken?
"If scientists knew nothing at all about relativity, string theory would have revealed relativity in complete form. Therefore, experimental confirmation of special and general relativity implies that string theory is correct."
Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. It assumes that string theory can be *deduced* from relativity and that there are no other theoretical frameworks that could also possibly explain observation. It is exactly this claim that is in dispute. You are begging the question.
Ryan M said... "do you actually believe Hawking's ought to buy a priests collar?"
Sure.
"What deity would he be advocating?"
Science
"How is he a theologian?"
He reifies an abstract theoretical framework to the status of a deity.
"Is every form of poor reasoning ( or science) simply a form of theology?"
No.
Ryan M said...
"Brenda, do you know what the definition of atheism is? "
Yes, atheism is the assertion that the proposition "God exists" is false.
"It certainly is not associated with politics."
Please review the history of the 20th century for copious counter evidence.
"Do you think there are some atheists who admit to not knowing certain things? Or do you group all atheists together? Also, do you think theism and atheism are at some sort of epistemic parity?"
Yes, it depends and yes.
"If so, why does it seem to be the case that you only argue against atheists? Do you argue with theists on other blogs?"
Gandolf said... "If theists didnt commit all this guess work about Gods, then we wouldnt have many of these kind of problems."
I think we'd have exactly the same problems we've always had only they'd be given different names and be done by different people.
"We really dont need so many hell fearing, charisma ridden devoted theists"
Strawman argument.
"Why the feeling you need to try and covince atheists we might "not know" yet ?"
In order to find out what my beliefs are. We only discover who we are by bumping into each other. If I only spoke to those with whom I agree I would never grow.
"It seems to me maybe you have a special personal dislike of Haawkings or something."
Benfea said... "Brenda, how old is that quote?"
Really? You are serious asking this? Is your arm broken?
It doesn't assume that string theory can be deduced from relativity. What it's saying is that string theory predicts relativity. In order to be viable, string theory must yield the theories of both special and general relativity. If physicists had been able to discover string theory before they knew anything at all about relativity, both the special and general theory would have emerged easily and straight forwardly from the analysis of strings. Strings cannot move self-consistently throughout space and time unless relativity is operating. Thus, the experimental proofs that affirm special and general relativity simultaneously serve as proofs for the validity of string theory. Because relativity is established, so are the many components of string theory.
Additional confirmation comes from the unique role string theory plays in solving major mysteries of physics. String theory is a quantum theory that demands the operation of gravity. It is the only theory that permits quantum mechanics and gravity to coexist. It is the only theory that self-consistently explains all the known properties of the known fundamental particles as well as all the properties and principles of quantum mechanics, all the properties and principles of both special and general relativity, and the operation of all four forces of physics.
I'm not sure what to think about what you said. Do you know what science is? Is it not a being, or a force with intention. So science by definition cannot be a deity.
Also, you contradict your own claim concerning atheism being related to politics. As you said, atheism is the negation of the proposition "God exists". So atheism cannot be related to anything politically, ethically, morally. However, I would agree that some political, ethical, and moral things can be associated to atheism if such things entail the negation of the proposition "God exists".
What are you saying about confirmation bias? I don't understand your response. Are you saying you only repond to atheists because of some sort of confirmation bias that some atheists tend to have?
Also, your agnosticism makes sense now. I would think if you were a Christian, you would not feign a position where theism is at an epistemic parity with atheism.
40 comments:
Sheldon Glashow
"[S]uperstring theory ... is, so far as I can see, totally divorced from experiment or observation. If not totally divorced, pretty well divorced. They will deny that, these string theorists.
[T]here ain't no experiment that could be done nor is there any observation that could be made that would say, "You guys are wrong." The theory is safe, permanently safe. I ask you, is that a theory of physics or a philosophy?
There is today a disconnect in the world of physics. Let me put it bluntly. There are physicists, and there are string theorists."
String theory, on which Stephen Hawking's extravagant claim rests, is non-falsifiable. Hawking should buy a priest's collar so he can fit in with the other theologians.
Brenda,
One set of evidence that string theory is correct is that string theory, on it's own, produces all the equations of general relativity. If scientists knew nothing at all about relativity string theory would have revealed it in complete form. Therefore, experimental confirmation of special and general relativity implies that string theory is correct.
You don't need string theory to discredit theism. It does fine on its own. The amazing thing is that people think Stephen Hawking is saying something new; some novel riposte to the god hypothesis. The fact is that as an explanation for anything, god *sucks*. And as if that weren't bad enough, there is no way to connect such a hypothetical deistic god to the god of any major religion currently extant. Which is why atheism is growing so fast. Anyone want to come over to the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist? You'd be very welcome :-)
Interesting panel discussion. The important point that a deity isn't necessary for the universe to exist did get through the jumble of baloney, I think.
It's also interesting how Deeprok Chopra keeps being called upon as an expert on religion. His "religion" is basically made up.
Deepak Chopra...
LOL!
Might as well ask Jim Jones.
Wait, no...
He's dead.
I'm just a dumb Christian who hasn't read the book so I have to ask, Is Hawking saying that God isn't necessary for this universe to come into being because this universe came from an infinite regress of former forms of matter / universes?
Is that what he's saying?
Is he saying that:
. Matter has always existed?
. There CAN be an infinite regress of cause?
Or if there can't be an infinite regress of cause, is Hawking saying that somewhere in the distant, distant past matter / energy brought itself into being?
Is that what he's saying?
Thesauros,
He believes that our universe along with others was created out of nothing by quantum fluctuations:
"We are the product of a quantum fluctuation in the very early universe." P 139
"Quantum fluctuations lead to the creation of tiny universes out of nothing. A few of these reach a critical size, then expand in an inflationary manner, forming galaxies, stars, and, in at least one case, beings like us." p. 137
I'm not sure how he defines nothing though because in the same chapter he states that in the early universe there are 4 dimensions of space and none of time:
"In the early universe - when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory - there were effectively 4 dimensions of space and none of time." P. 134
He seems to state that time is a dimension of space in the early universe:
"The realization that time can behave like another direction of space means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning." p. 134.
"I'm not sure how he defines nothing though"
Well, that's exactly the issue - isn't it.
Quantum fluctuations don't take place in 'nothing'.
A vaccum isn't 'nothing.'
Gravity is acting upon something.
So where is he suggesting this something came from?
All he's done is taken the questions that used to be directed at this universe and pushed them back X amount of time into the past.
He hasn't resolved anything. He's just used a catchy line "God isn't needed" to push sales of his book.
Thesauros said... "He hasn't resolved anything. He's just used a catchy line "God isn't needed" to push sales of his book."
Hi Mak, do hope you and your wife and family are all well.
With what you said above ,you mean kind of like the catchy line "God is needed" that in the past helped faith book writers to push sales of the holy faith books :)
Atleast if the cause is Quantum fluctuations ,or vaccum ,or gravity or what ever it might finally be found out to be.
Because its a factor thats not about any "lifeforce" or "being" with its own "conscience" etc.
Then that in itself would become a little more understandable, and help explain and even fit far better! with the fact why we honestly dont actually even see sign of any superhuman "lifeforce" or omnipotent "being" with any "concience" at work in our universe.
At present we have faithful folks who make all manner of assertions anyway, about all their ideas of the many different Gods, that have long pushed the sales of their holy books and Bible and Qurans etc.Along with use of fear tatics about heaven and hell or whatever else they decided and asserted on us, that then also enabled those folks to form many special sub faith groups of subjection and seregation and even apply pressure to try and get certain folk to bow down to their authority and conform.That has also been whats helped lead to ability of some of those ruling these groups to get away with ways of sexually abusing children etc.And much much else thats often been horribly nasty
So Mak , what makes you more worried about this Hawkings fellow hawking his book.You say Hawking hasnt resolved anything.But how can Hawking book be any worse for humanity, than the continued hawking of faith books of such faith assertions, that also sold plenty and caused a whole lot of trouble along the way with it.
Tell me Mak .Do you see Hawkings book seperating families and causing so much trouble and opression and segregation and human abuse etc like all the holy books have?.
The M in M-theory stands for magic.
"One set of evidence that string theory is correct is that string theory, on it's own, produces all the equations of general relativity."
That isn't falsification.
"Therefore, experimental confirmation of special and general relativity implies that string theory is correct."
That isn't even science.
Brenda says:
String theory, on which Stephen Hawking's extravagant claim rests, is non-falsifiable. Hawking should buy a priest's collar so he can fit in with the other theologians.
That's what basically another physicist (a naturalist himself) says as well:
Peter Woit's take
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3141
'The book is short (about 100 pages of actual text, interspersed with lots of color graphics and cartoons), and contains rather little substantive science. There are no references of any kind to any other sources. The discussion of supersymmetry and M-theory is often highly misleading....I’m in favor of naturalism and leaving God out of physics as much as the next person, but if you’re the sort who wants to go to battle in the science/religion wars, why you would choose to take up such a dubious weapon as M-theory mystifies me. A British journalist contacted me about this recently and we talked about M-theory and its problems. She wanted me to comment on whether physicists doing this sort of thing are relying upon “faith” in much the same way as religious believers. I stuck to my standard refusal to get into such discussions, but, thinking about it, have to admit that the kind of pseudo-science going on here and being promoted in this book isn’t obviously any better than the faith-based explanations of how the world works favored by conventional religions.'
@ Gandolf - Hello! My wife is doing much better. Thank you for asking.
As to religious people hawking their wares and using catchy "God did it" lines to do it, you're absolutely right. As to damage being done to communities and families being damaged by Christians using their "holy book" to beat people with it - again, guilty as charged.
But that's not the point of my statement. Let me use a comment from someone else on a different blog.
“It strikes me that Hawking is trading on his reputation as a scientist to make a non-scientific claim.”
That's all I'm saying.
Brenda,
String theory (on it's own) produces all the equations of relativity. To falsify string theory all you need to do is falsify relativity.
Cole said "String theory (on it's own) produces all the equations of relativity. To falsify string theory all you need to do is falsify relativity."
Peter Woit
"The fundamental problem is that simple versions of the string theory unification idea, the ones often sold as “beautiful”, disagree with experiment for some basic reasons. Getting around these problems requires working with much more complicated versions, which have become so complicated that the framework becomes untestable as it can be made to agree with virtually anything one is likely to experimentally measure. "
When your theory disagrees with the experimental evidence and in reaction you water it down so much that that it predicts just about anything you no longer have a theory and you are no longer doing science.
What is really happening in my opinion is that the atheist ideology of the people involved is driving the science rather than the other way around as it should be.
Peter Woit's main thesis is that the academic environment of publish or perish" combined with other factors are driving an over commitment to string theory and pushing out competing ideas.
As an agnostic who argues against atheism, which I see as a political ideology, I would rather people just admit "We don't know". But militant atheists won't allow that because they have an emotional commitment to a political agenda.
Brenda,
I agree that string theory hasn't been "proven"
All I'm saying is that there is one piece of evidence that gives it some likelihood. If scientists knew nothing at all about relativity, string theory would have revealed relativity in complete form. Therefore, experimental confirmation of special and general relativity implies that string theory is correct.
Brenda, do you actually believe Hawking's ought to buy a priests collar? What deity would he be advocating? How is he a theologian? Is every form of poor reasoning ( or science) simply a form of theology?
Brenda, do you know what the definition of atheism is? I suspect not. It certainly is not associated with politics. Do you think there are some atheists who admit to not knowing certain things? Or do you group all atheists together? Also, do you think theism and atheism are at some sort of epistemic parity? If so, why does it seem to be the case that you only argue against atheists? Do you argue with theists on other blogs?
If everything has to have a cause, nothing can be the first cause.
"If everything has to have a cause, nothing can be the first cause"
It's:
. Everything that "Begins To Exist" has a cause.
. Everything that begins to exist has an explanation of it's coming into existence.
To say, "When did an eternal Being begin to exist" is pretty silly - no less silly than "What caused an eternal Being to begin to exist."
Even the brightest that atheism has to offer, or at least he thinks he's the brightest - Richard Dawkins has asked such profoundly incoherent questions.
Brenda said,
"What is really happening in my opinion is that the atheist ideology of the people involved is driving the science rather than the other way around as it should be.
Peter Woit's main thesis is that the academic environment of publish or perish" combined with other factors are driving an over commitment to string theory and pushing out competing ideas."
I agree, completely.
That's a nice way to dance around your own argument. It's just as silly for you to incoherently pretend to know if eternal beings exist.
Thesauros, I hope you don't think Richard Dawkins is the best defender of atheism.
"It's just as silly for you to incoherently pretend to know if eternal beings exist."
Well, either matter is eternal or the cause of matter is eternal. We know that matter cannot be eternal so . . .
Either matter can bring itself into existence or an eternal cause brought matter into existence so . . .
We know that the cause of the universe was not "natural" since nothing natural existed until the Singularlity so . . .
As far as Dawkins being the best one to represent atheism, I'd ask for your suggestion but I'm afraid you'd say John Loftus and then I'd have to be physically ill right before going to bed :-)
Thesauros, I'm guessing you do not know much about the philosophy of religion. An intro course may help you discover much better defenders than Dawkins. Ill name a few semi popular ones: Paul Draper, Graham Oppy, Richard Gale, John Schellenberg, Gregory Dawes, Quentin Smith, Jordan Sobel, Michael Martin, Raymond Bradley, Theodore Drange, Nicholas Everitt. I think that is a decent list of some contemporary defenders of non-theistic worldviews. Also, while I do not think Loftus is the best defender of atheism, I think he should be regarded as an important opponent of Christianity. I think debunking Christianity is his main focus, not proving something like metaphysical naturalism to be true. His knowledge of Christianity seems to be vast, and from what I've seen, some Christian philosophers of religion do not nearly compare to his level of expertise, which is kind of odd.
Brenda said.."As an agnostic who argues against atheism, which I see as a political ideology, I would rather people just admit "We don't know". But militant atheists won't allow that because they have an emotional commitment to a political agenda."
Brenda you tell the theists to quit their guesswork.If theists didnt commit all this guess work about Gods, then we wouldnt have many of these kind of problems.
Try and get more theists to admit "We dont know"
Its very important other theorys do get aired !, if nothing else, for the very reason, to show the whole world in fact there could be other possibilitys!.
We really dont need so many hell fearing, charisma ridden devoted theists, domineering our planet ,with the scepticism and deep thought ability part of their brains all half shut down.Running around like zombies chickens nodding their heads to the demands of the whack-job priests,some who decided to burn Qurans ,at a highly volitile time! when elsewhere even threat of atomic war is also growing and fast becoming another threat worth worring about.
Whether Hawking be right or wrong,or this is only theory.In my opinion, its about time more people start airing and considdering there might in fact be other possibilities !,so more might listen to what you said, and admit! yes "We don't know".Because at the moment far to many have had their "minds manipulated" by faith, to think "they do know".
So much so, some folk will even blow themselves and others up, for faith.Others will burn books in revenge! matches over it.Elsewhere fear stops mass sexual abuse being exposed.Idiots who dont know!, think they do know,and with devoted brains half shut down, "vote with the faith brain flow" , trying their zombie best to stop new medical research, such as stem cell etc.
Most atheists are not the ones you really need to be convincing we "dont really know" for absolutely sure yet.Many of them are already agnostic , other than being atheist! through seeing little "real evidence" of any Gods at all.Many folks are atheist about tooth fairys that way as well.
Why the feeling you need to try and covince atheists we might "not know" yet ? .This is what many atheists have been trying to say all along.
It seems to me maybe you have a special personal dislike of Haawkings or something.Or you might be a theist dressed up as a agnostic.
Its only my "theory" mind you .Totally unscientific! of me .. tut tut
Thesauros said... "@ Gandolf - Hello! My wife is doing much better. Thank you for asking. "
You are welcome.Glad to hear that your wife is doing much better Mak.
You said.."But that's not the point of my statement. Let me use a comment from someone else on a different blog.
“It strikes me that Hawking is trading on his reputation as a scientist to make a non-scientific claim.”
That's all I'm saying."
I understand.But still whats wrong with people suggesting theorys, so maybe more people might start to understand and realize there just might indeed be other possibilities Mak?.
Why should theists lay claim to "owning the right" to suggest any theorys?.
Seems anybody else dare do it.And folks suggest they need to wear a priest collar if they do.
Whats wrong with suggesting possibility of other theorys, so maybe more folk start at least considdering their theist "theory" could even possibly be wrong.
We could do with it.Might be helpful to help soften some fundy types attitudes ,westboro baptist and the like etc.
When its obviously not so obvious whether Gods do actually exist,whats so wrong with pointing that out!, by suggesting other theorys could also possibly exist.
Thesauros said... "To say, "When did an eternal Being begin to exist" is pretty silly - no less silly than "What caused an eternal Being to begin to exist."
Mak why is this silly?.We dont even know for sure if there was an "eternal being".
Just because folks have theorys maybe one existed, doesnt prove it did.
If an "eternal being" existed ,what do you suppose this eternal being might have did with all his "eternal time" long before he bothered to decide creating the universe?. Played tiddly winks or snakes n ladders?.
If it was such an eternal being living right throughout all eternity.And if the universe is say estimated about 13-20 billion years old or what ever and the earths about say 4.5 billion years old or what ever.
What did this eternal being do with all the rest of his eternal time!, before that?.
Its not just a silly question asking what caused and eternal being to exist.Because if he was eternal and it doesnt seem like the universe or earth was,what was this eternal being up to all the eternal years long before he decided to create a universe.Why suddenly decide to create when he did,why not decide to create long before he decided to?.
If the eternal being doesnt need a cause.Was he just like some thoughtless concience floating around in lots of nothing ,thinking of doing nothing for eternity,long before, all of a sudden finally deciding to think of doing something?.
Why suggest and eternal being doesnt need a cause.How can you even be so sure of it?.You dont even know for sure, exactly how eternal he was do you?.
Dawkins is not totally stupid.For one thing! he is very correct!,faith has nastily abused many young children with manipulative fear tatics about a supposed place called hell.A place that is really only a theory!, and has yet to be even proved to honestly exist.
Some of these nasty people have been like faith terrorists.Like the abusive Taliban of young childrens nightmares.
Ryan M said of me (blush): Also, while I do not think Loftus is the best defender of atheism, I think he should be regarded as an important opponent of Christianity. I think debunking Christianity is his main focus, not proving something like metaphysical naturalism to be true. His knowledge of Christianity seems to be vast, and from what I've seen, some Christian philosophers of religion do not nearly compare to his level of expertise, which is kind of odd.
I specialize in all things Christian, yes, you're absolutely right about me.
Thanks.
"His knowledge of Christianity seems to be vast,"
Yes, and his knowledge of and experience with Jesus - zero - nevertheless, thank you for the references. You know how it is with us unschooled Christians. We need all the help we can get.
=======
"by suggesting other theorys could also possibly exist."
If it was put as tentitavly as you word it I wouldn’t have a problem.
However, each and every one of the following Atheist Origin of the Universe Mythologies have been presented as fact and then when shown as unworkable, “Oh I guess not.” “Oh I guess not.” “Oh I guess not.”
Oscillating universe -
Baby universes -
Multi verses -
The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario -
The Chaotic Inflationary universe -
Brane-cosmology -
Inflationary multi-verse -
Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum -
The many worlds -
The black hole -
Quantum gravity models -
Vacuum fluctuation models -
Imaginary time and imaginary space -
=========
"To say, "When did an eternal Being begin to exist" is pretty silly - no less silly than "
Mak why is this silly?
I should have used the word “cause” instead of Being.
To be eternal, in this context, means to have never NOT existed. To exist outside of time.
My friend who was earlier suggesting I take a philosophy class should know that either matter has always existed or the cause of matter has always existed.
That is because the material infinite does not and cannot exist.
To ask when something eternal began is incoherent. To ask what caused something eternal to begin is incoherent.
========
“what do you suppose this eternal being might have did with all his "eternal time"”
Prior to matter / energy / space / time coming into being at the Singularity, time did not exist.
What this Cause was doing is immaterial to this discussion. As is the rest of your comment, with priests abusing children etc. The things you mentioned are serious topics no doubt, but respectfully Gandolff, they are off topic for this discussion.
Thesauros said "To be eternal, in this context, means to have never NOT existed. To exist outside of time. "
and then "Prior to matter / energy / space / time coming into being at the Singularity, time did not exist."
He really works overtime is his conjecture and speculation that all matter and energy but the eternal being is subject to space and time. His toil proves nothing. He still has an "uncaused" cause, and absolutely zero hard evidence of his conjectures.
Brenda, how old is that quote? It was true until relatively recently that string theory was non-falsifiable, but that is no longer the case. In fact if the Large Hadron Collider fails to find the Higgs Boson, at least part of string theory will have to be re-worked.
Thesauros said... "What this Cause was doing is immaterial to this discussion. As is the rest of your comment, with priests abusing children etc. The things you mentioned are serious topics no doubt, but respectfully Gandolff, they are off topic for this discussion."
Hi Mak.With all due respect,its only off topic if you prefer to try and excuse yourself from discussing it.Which is fine,i understand you not likeling to discuss these matters,just as i understand popes prefering to try to cover up sexual abuse in their churches.
But the fact is when these things arise from groups of people who guessed about Gods,it has got to do with this subject in my opinion.And anyway it was you that first discussed Dawkins, why hurl abuse at him if and call him totally hopeless if you dont want to discuss it fair and square.
Mak if you want to be treated with some kindness respect and decency remember to try to extend that trait toward others also.If you personally hate certian people,how do you suppose they should get to feel the opposite.
I understand you wish you had said cause,but my point is about how its not obvious a supreme being has been involved in matters.Even though folks of faith with their theorys,have forced them upon us and this abuse has been all part and parcel of whats been the result.So in that sense its got every importance to this discussion.And goes right back to what i said about how likely is it Hawkings theory claim will be as harmful as what God faith theorys have been.
Highly unlikely i suggest.And quite possibly it would have been best if more of these non superstitious theorys got aired more to help more people consider them.As it might have helped lesson the abuse brought on by belief of the many Gods and supreme beings etc.
But the fact is there was a time when it might have even got you tortured and/or slaughtered for even daring to have such theorys.
So Hurrah ! for Hawking! for having the guts ! to at least dare speak his mind about these matters.About time more people! do all start at least thinking and considdering more about all these other possibilitys also.
Bossy God theorys have forced! their way into demanding! centre stage for far to long now,with terrible nasty disastorous outcomes!.
So what if he`s another one thats wrong again.Cant be much worse than all the extreme wrong caused by all the different God theorys.
Do you want to admit that?.Or would you prefer i respect that you would rather prefer! not need to think about it.
Mak i do still respect "you" for many reasons, even if i cant respect your faith,but try to understand respect is something that most people feel needs to be somewhat like a two way street, if its going to happen.And Dawkins and Loftus are both human too, even if you dont agree with everything about them.
Anyway take care.Be well.
“With all due respect,its only off topic if you prefer to try and excuse yourself from discussing it. Which is fine,i understand you not likeling to discuss these matters,”
Gandi, I don’t have any problem talking about the wrongs that I or any other member of the Christian faith have perpetrated on others. I just don’t see the connection with string theory.
==========
“Mak if you want to be treated with some kindness respect and decency remember to try to extend that trait toward others also.”
I don’t really care how you treat me but you’re right, I shouldn’t be so snarky to others.
==========
“I understand you wish you had said cause,but my point is about how its not obvious a supreme being has been involved in matters.”
Actually, when you come to see that the material infinite cannot and does not exist, that matter / energy / space / time were brought into being - no - HAD to have been brought into existence from something that is transcendent AND prior to those things - and then - if you consider what the cause must have been like (we can discuss that if you like), you’ll come to see that the Cause possesses the exact same attributes that we use to describe Creator God.
=========
“So what if he`s another one thats wrong again. Cant be much worse than all the extreme wrong caused by all the different God theorys.”
So you think that it’s the theories themselves that cause the abuse - not abusive people using religion or politics or boys / girls clubs etc. etc. for their own evil ends?
Gandi, did you see on the news just a week or so back where police found a “Manual for Abuse” or some such thing? And in the manual the paedophiles who made the Manual listed good places for other child molesters to find children - Church was just one of the places recommended. Are you going to allow the molesters to go free and blame the Church or minor sports or kids clubs or whatever agency these people use to perpetrate their evil instead?
I wish I could hear sometime how you’ve been hurt by the Church. It must have been terrible for your thinking to be so skewed in order to think:
Bad Christians equals proof for No God.
I truly am sorry that religious people have hurt you but that has no bearing on the truth of what Jesus taught. Bad Christians have no bearing on how matter came into existence.
At least I sure can't see the connection.
Thesauros said... "I just don’t see the connection with string theory."
Fair enough Mak
Mak said.."I don’t really care how you treat me but you’re right, I shouldn’t be so snarky to others."
Yeah well sometimes! your attitude washes off pretty good on me too Mak.I know you enough to realize mostly your hearts in the right place anyway.You take care of some disadvantaged children,i like that kindness.Even though maybe i wish you didnt dislike Dawkins or Loftus so personally.
I treat people a little badly sometimes too! Mak, you already know that!.But we humans all have our ways of rubbing off on each other ,sometimes good,sometime bad.We need to try and remeber it takes two to tango.
When we do,we find our game often gets played more fairly on both sides.
But still playing fairly doesnt just equal not ever being simply honest about matters though.And Dawkins is correct its abusive "young kids" get threatened with hell,specially when hell is not even been proved.Thats terrorism.
Mak said.."Actually, when you come to see that the material infinite cannot and does not exist, that matter / energy / space / time were brought into being - no - HAD to have been brought into existence from something that is transcendent AND prior to those things - and then - if you consider what the cause must have been like (we can discuss that if you like), you’ll come to see that the Cause possesses the exact same attributes that we use to describe Creator God."
Well maybe.But im not so sure that means we should simply assert Gods as the answer.
Mak said.."So you think that it’s the theories themselves that cause the abuse - not abusive people using religion or politics or boys / girls clubs etc. etc. for their own evil ends?
Gandi, did you see on the news just a week or so back where police found a “Manual for Abuse” or some such thing? "
Hey Mak you wont find me promoting any book that promotes abusing people.I dont have any special personal agenda of persecuting faithful folks.Infact i have some understanding of how some of them came to be who they are,and realize its not all their fault when these harmful distructive manuels exist that mislead them.And so i try not to personally condemn them,even if others do.But yes in my "opinion", lots written within all these faith books havent really honestly been helpful.
Mak said.."to think:
Bad Christians equals proof for No God.
I truly am sorry that religious people have hurt you but that has no bearing on the truth of what Jesus taught. Bad Christians have no bearing on how matter came into existence.
At least I sure can't see the connection."
Mak i dont condemn Jesus either .And its not just action of some Christians, what makes me atheist.Although if people claim guidence of holy spirit,should show sign of it if its indeed a honest claim.But most often i feel i see the complete oposite.
But the fact is ive tested it myself with honesty.Ive felt no effect,and neither seen any sure honest sign of God.
Sure people say faith is what it takes.Just believe.Only believe.
But people can do that and end up believing in absolutely anything Mak.Which is why we also have the Ghost believers,Hindu believers,Islam believers,Satanists etc etc .
I keep my mind open to sign of Ghosts,Devils,Gods,Trolls,and anything that there might appear some honest sign of existence.
Gods being omnipotent and smart surely should have realized humans needed a good supply of evidence if they wanted humans to know exactly who to follow.
Otherwise without a continuing flow! of good evidence always being made available, we are left wide open to trickery and bad decision making and foolery.
With regards to the bad effect faith had on my life.Thats part of life while people promote these faiths the way they do as being complete truth.If as many people promoted pedofile books the same way,the problem would be widespreadly promoted also.
Mak nice chatting with you.
Cole said...
"If scientists knew nothing at all about relativity, string theory would have revealed relativity in complete form. Therefore, experimental confirmation of special and general relativity implies that string theory is correct."
Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. It assumes that string theory can be *deduced* from relativity and that there are no other theoretical frameworks that could also possibly explain observation. It is exactly this claim that is in dispute. You are begging the question.
Ryan M said...
"do you actually believe Hawking's ought to buy a priests collar?"
Sure.
"What deity would he be advocating?"
Science
"How is he a theologian?"
He reifies an abstract theoretical framework to the status of a deity.
"Is every form of poor reasoning ( or science) simply a form of theology?"
No.
Ryan M said...
"Brenda, do you know what the definition of atheism is? "
Yes, atheism is the assertion that the proposition "God exists" is false.
"It certainly is not associated with politics."
Please review the history of the 20th century for copious counter evidence.
"Do you think there are some atheists who admit to not knowing certain things? Or do you group all atheists together? Also, do you think theism and atheism are at some sort of epistemic parity?"
Yes, it depends and yes.
"If so, why does it seem to be the case that you only argue against atheists? Do you argue with theists on other blogs?"
Confirmation bias and yes but not recently.
Gandolf said...
"If theists didnt commit all this guess work about Gods, then we wouldnt have many of these kind of problems."
I think we'd have exactly the same problems we've always had only they'd be given different names and be done by different people.
"We really dont need so many hell fearing, charisma ridden devoted theists"
Strawman argument.
"Why the feeling you need to try and covince atheists we might "not know" yet ?"
In order to find out what my beliefs are. We only discover who we are by bumping into each other. If I only spoke to those with whom I agree I would never grow.
"It seems to me maybe you have a special personal dislike of Haawkings or something."
Benfea said...
"Brenda, how old is that quote?"
Really? You are serious asking this? Is your arm broken?
Cole said...
"If scientists knew nothing at all about relativity, string theory would have revealed relativity in complete form. Therefore, experimental confirmation of special and general relativity implies that string theory is correct."
Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. It assumes that string theory can be *deduced* from relativity and that there are no other theoretical frameworks that could also possibly explain observation. It is exactly this claim that is in dispute. You are begging the question.
Ryan M said...
"do you actually believe Hawking's ought to buy a priests collar?"
Sure.
"What deity would he be advocating?"
Science
"How is he a theologian?"
He reifies an abstract theoretical framework to the status of a deity.
"Is every form of poor reasoning ( or science) simply a form of theology?"
No.
Ryan M said...
"Brenda, do you know what the definition of atheism is? "
Yes, atheism is the assertion that the proposition "God exists" is false.
"It certainly is not associated with politics."
Please review the history of the 20th century for copious counter evidence.
"Do you think there are some atheists who admit to not knowing certain things? Or do you group all atheists together? Also, do you think theism and atheism are at some sort of epistemic parity?"
Yes, it depends and yes.
"If so, why does it seem to be the case that you only argue against atheists? Do you argue with theists on other blogs?"
Confirmation bias and yes but not recently.
Gandolf said...
"If theists didnt commit all this guess work about Gods, then we wouldnt have many of these kind of problems."
I think we'd have exactly the same problems we've always had only they'd be given different names and be done by different people.
"We really dont need so many hell fearing, charisma ridden devoted theists"
Strawman argument.
"Why the feeling you need to try and covince atheists we might "not know" yet ?"
In order to find out what my beliefs are. We only discover who we are by bumping into each other. If I only spoke to those with whom I agree I would never grow.
"It seems to me maybe you have a special personal dislike of Haawkings or something."
Benfea said...
"Brenda, how old is that quote?"
Really? You are serious asking this? Is your arm broken?
Brenda,
It doesn't assume that string theory can be deduced from relativity. What it's saying is that string theory predicts relativity. In order to be viable, string theory must yield the theories of both special and general relativity. If physicists had been able to discover string theory before they knew anything at all about relativity, both the special and general theory would have emerged easily and straight forwardly from the analysis of strings. Strings cannot move self-consistently throughout space and time unless relativity is operating. Thus, the experimental proofs that affirm special and general relativity simultaneously serve as proofs for the validity of string theory. Because relativity is established, so are the many components of string theory.
Additional confirmation comes from the unique role string theory plays in solving major mysteries of physics. String theory is a quantum theory that demands the operation of gravity. It is the only theory that permits quantum mechanics and gravity to coexist. It is the only theory that self-consistently explains all the known properties of the known fundamental particles as well as all the properties and principles of quantum mechanics, all the properties and principles of both special and general relativity, and the operation of all four forces of physics.
Brenda.
I'm not sure what to think about what you said. Do you know what science is? Is it not a being, or a force with intention. So science by definition cannot be a deity.
Also, you contradict your own claim concerning atheism being related to politics. As you said, atheism is the negation of the proposition "God exists". So atheism cannot be related to anything politically, ethically, morally. However, I would agree that some political, ethical, and moral things can be associated to atheism if such things entail the negation of the proposition "God exists".
Brenda,
What are you saying about confirmation bias? I don't understand your response. Are you saying you only repond to atheists because of some sort of confirmation bias that some atheists tend to have?
Also, your agnosticism makes sense now. I would think if you were a Christian, you would not feign a position where theism is at an epistemic parity with atheism.
Post a Comment