Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by kmguru, Sep 2, 2010.

  1. Kajalamorth The Doctor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    76
    But thats the problem you did call me ignorant. You could have debated like a normal person and give me proof. Do not call me stupid I know who I am and I am not stupid. I know its biased. But I know I am no genius. Simple sa that. Either way if you said my logic is flawed or I am ignorant is rude....

    Yeah their other then you are incapable of respecting another person. Good for you. You bigot.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot here you go if you don't understand my message.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    That makes un-sense.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. M00se1989 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    508
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Parmenides Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    48
    With due respect, I think being religious (or non-religious) is not required to be 'admitted' to science. You just need the requisite academic competence. In my view being 'admitted' to science is actually easier than other professions, like law or medicine, where the professional standards for admission look not just into academic performance but also moral character.

    It was true once scientists needed to be religious in order to practice their field, as can be seen in the history of science with examples like Galileo or Newton, who had to swear allegiance to the official doctrines of the Anglican Church. But this is certainly no longer the case.

    It is true some atheists like Richard Dawkins have vigorously argued for an atheistic world-view, and used science to support their arguments. When I see Dawkins arguing for atheism or against religion, I don't see him doing science but rather moving into the realm of philosophy and religious belief. I am perfectly comfortable with someone, including scientists, engaging in philosophy because philosophical questions (like whether or not God exists and what is the real meaning of life) are incredibly important, and scientists should bring their training and insights into these questions. I am more than happy to hear what Dawkins, Hawking, etc have to say on these questions, as scientists.

    But there are also scientists who are also theists, like John Polkingthorne. He is an ordained Anglican priest and also a very distinguished scientist. This is disproof of the notion you have to be an atheist to do science, as Dawkins is a disproof of the notion belief in God is necessary to do science.
     
  8. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,230
    Those aren't atoms that you're seeing, they're computer-generated images based on data collected during electron microscopy experiments.
    They are to "seeing an atom" what looking at a radar image is to "seeing an airplane."
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2010
  9. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,230
    Total bullshit. I have a PhD in a scientific discipline (chemistry) and I have successfully gotten through peer-review to publish the results of my work. At no point along the way did anyone ask me about my religious beliefs. They just asked me what experiments I did and what sort of data I collected. In fact, I can absolutely guarantee you that if anyone tried to hinder a scientist's career in either academia or industry because of their religious beliefs, they would quickly find themselves facing huge lawsuits (and rightly so). My PhD adviser in graduate school was a devout christian, in addition to a pretty successful scientist. I love how you don't let the fact that you don't actually know anything about what its like to have a scientific career get in the way of you making pronouncements about what affects a scientist's career.
     
  10. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    This isn't a computer screen you are seeing, it's data generated by your retina and transmitted through your optic nerve to your brain.
     
  11. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,230
    Light is striking my computer screen and hitting my eye, allowing my brain to generate an image. That's what people typically mean by "seeing." When you look at an electron micrograph of an atom, you're not looking at an atom - you're looking at experimental data on a screen/printout/whatever.
     
  12. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    It's all indirect perception.
     
  13. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,230
    In the same way that I could build a little lego sculpture of the Eiffel Tower and show it to a person who has never been to Paris to give them an indirect perception of the Eiffel Tower. But in my opinion a person who sees a crude lego sculpture of the Eiffel Tower cannot honestly say that they have seen the Eiffel Tower. They could certainly say that they have an idea what the Eiffel Tower looks like, but that doesn't mean they've ever actually seen it.

    But I don't want to get into a semantics argument. If you want to consider seeing any representation of an object's shape to be equivalent to seeing the original object itself, I'm not going to debate you on it.
     
  14. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    Perhaps its an indirect viewing - the atoms existence is not lyed about. If a computer can sucessfuly map an atom which we can view indirectly, and if we assume it's not true, then what is the computer doing...

    ..lying?
     
  15. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    We view not the world we see... the world we see is in fact electrical signals interpretated by the brain.

    Using your logic, we don't view anything at all then?
     
  16. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,230
    I never said that we should assume that electron micrographs aren't accurate. I'm just saying that seeing an electron micrograph of an object isn't the same as actually seeing the object. See my previous post.
     
  17. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    Read above.
     
  18. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,230
    Most people are able to grasp the difference between seeing object X vs. seeing a graphical representation of object X that is not actually object X.

    But again, if you want to argue that seeing a lego sculpture of the Eiffel Tower is the same as seeing the Eiffel Tower, I don't really care to argue with you. A semantics debate over the definition of "too see" does not interest me very much.
    No, that's just some stupid bullshit that you made up.
     
  19. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    No Nasor, in all respect, I used your definition. The definition of viewing is no more superior if you can understand what a computer does, is basically what a human brain does - albiet, slightly different fundamental processes, but ultimately the same technical conspiracy.

    The brain does very much a computer does. When a scientist says they can view an atom, they surely do mean this even in the most technical of senses. Saying I've made up bullshit, is just you, avoiding the facts I presented.

    A computer views, and we see that information, no more a complex bio-structure called a brain views, and we see that information.
     
  20. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,230
    Again, I don't care about a semantics debate of the definition of "to see."
    The bullshit was when you said:
    ...when in fact I hadn't said anything that could be construed this way. Differentiating between seeing an object vs. seeing a picture of an object does not in any way imply that we "don't view anything at all." One is seeing an object, and one is seeing a picture. The ability to see an object and the ability to see a picture of an object both presuppose seeing things.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2010
  21. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    You still don't get it do you. What part of, 'we don't actually view the outside world' do you not get? When I said the brain evaluates electrical signals akin to computers evaluating some projective image on a computer screen, do you not understand?

    Indeed, you never insinuated that we do not view anything, but using your logical discourse, a computer does create information we cannot veiw, no more illuminating than that of a human brain - for again, a brain very much takes information from the outside world - we systematically revolve around a state of flux involving the idea of information and how it is processed. If I say we view an atom on a computer screen, is no more a viable viewing than seeing through a biological contruction such as a brain, reconstructing the outside world in a way we understand it.
     
  22. M00se1989 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    508
    images of images of images.....

    your living in an illusion... we should all be dead by now hopefully.

    we might just wake up and find a core that makes everything work...

    what slows down time???

    matter....

    whats matter??? everything?

    what are you made of?

    everything.

    what happens when you put everything together. everything...
     
  23. Green Destiny Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,211
    Call it semantics if you wish. To me, neither are more superior than the other. We can trust a computers vigour, as much as we vigorously evaluate information ourselves.
     

Share This Page