Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation

You still don't get it do you.
No, you don't get it. I subscribe to a definition of "see" that requires light to travel from the object in question and strike the human eye. You apparently do not. Get over it. You keep going on about the subjective internal experience of "viewing," which has no relevance to the semantic debate that I keep trying not to have.
What part of, 'we don't actually view the outside world' do you not get?
Who cares? How is that relevant? I am not, as you seem to imagine, trying to claim that the computer is untrustworthy or something. I am simply saying that an electron micrograph, however accurate and trustworthy it might be, does not meet my definition of "seeing."
 
No, you don't get it. I subscribe to a definition of "see" that requires light to travel from the object in question and strike the human eye. You apparently do not. Get over it. You keep going on about the subjective internal experience of "viewing," which has no relevance to the semantic debate that I keep trying not to have.
Who cares? How is that relevant? I am not, as you seem to imagine, trying to claim that the computer is untrustworthy or something. I am simply saying that an electron micrograph, however accurate and trustworthy it might be, does not meet my definition of "seeing."

Maybe in your ''magical'' world all that is required is a photon to bounce off the retina. There is in fact, a complex series of chemical imbalances which result in a mesh of information. It's a lot more than what you may wish for others to simply reconcile.
 
So you yourself latched onto the entirity of the post used to make sense of your idiocy of what constitutes a ''viewing''.

Whatever. I've had enough.
 
"Ahh! sucks...I thought the ultimate answer is 42..."

Oh Yea of little faith.

It's only if he had said "God did exist", I would be worried.

But what do I know.

Light in, Light out.

Kind Regards,

Terry Giblin
 
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.
all this is basic stuff that is not much different from optics technology that goes into cameras

it gets really complex when you start to get down to the necessary literacy levels that grant you entrance to texts

for instance

633781955094377655-RacistCamera.jpg
 
Besides a causally consistent self creating universe is compatible with the known behaviour of gravity.
From the abstract this self creating universe sounds rather speculative...

Can the Universe Create Itself?
Authors: J. Richard Gott, III, Li-Xin Li
(Submitted on 30 Dec 1997)

Abstract: The question of first-cause has troubled philosophers and cosmologists alike. Now that it is apparent that our universe began in a Big Bang explosion, the question of what happened before the Big Bang arises. Inflation seems like a very promising answer, but as Borde and Vilenkin have shown, the inflationary state preceding the Big Bang must have had a beginning also. Ultimately, the difficult question seems to be how to make something out of nothing. This paper explores the idea that this is the wrong question --- that that is not how the Universe got here. Instead, we explore the idea of whether there is anything in the laws of physics that would prevent the Universe from creating itself. Because spacetimes can be curved and multiply connected, general relativity allows for the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs). Thus, tracing backwards in time through the original inflationary state we may eventually encounter a region of CTCs giving no first-cause. This region of CTCs, may well be over by now (being bounded toward the future by a Cauchy horizon). We illustrate that such models --- with CTCs --- are not necessarily inconsistent by demonstrating self-consistent vacuums for Misner space and a multiply connected de Sitter space in which the renormalized energy-momentum tensor does not diverge as one approaches the Cauchy horizon and solves Einstein's equations. We show such a Universe can be classically stable and self-consistent if and only if the potentials are retarded, giving a natural explanation of the arrow of time. Some specific scenarios (out of many possible ones) for this type of model are described. For example: an inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself. Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own mother.
The writers say 'may allow' whereas you make it sound like we know it is compatible.

Further we are still dealing with some kind of potentials present. The potential for something to arise out of nothing or itself. It is not universe here and this potential being something separate from this universe or the metauniverse. So we are still left with the question of why this is possible.
I also thought that self-causation was generally scoffed at in these kinds of discussions and not by the theists.
 
Who told you we cannot see an atom? Today, powerful computers can make sufficient imaging scans - it's just as good as looking at one with the naked eye.

You have to have faith that what the computer is showing you is actually an atom. The data collected by the computer is not (usually) light. And it is processed.

These images, by the way, mostly show vague, blobby things. The internal structure is not visible.
 
You have to have faith that what the computer is showing you is actually an atom. The data collected by the computer is not (usually) light. And it is processed.

These images, by the way, mostly show vague, blobby things. The internal structure is not visible.

My goodness James, you make the computer sound unreliable.

:cool:

They may indeed have a mind of their own :p

(only joking of course)
 
Besides, physicists have very recently for the first time, been able to explore the structure of the atom using a beam of periodic light.
 
You have to have faith that what the computer is showing you is actually an atom. The data collected by the computer is not (usually) light. And it is processed.

These images, by the way, mostly show vague, blobby things. The internal structure is not visible.

Uh-huh. :eek:
 
I have no idea what that means.
its like this -

what new technologies does this new finding establish : absolutely none
what existing technologies would require revision if this new finding was proven inaccurate or wrong : absolutely none

hence

what is the value of this new finding : absolutely none

Might as well be

Stephen Hawking : God not needed to rid the world of ninjas
or
Stephen Hawking : The world's most important vampires not required to discuss eternity

nb: terming it a "finding" is probably a bit magnanimous
 
Last edited:
Firstly I called your logic stupid......


A statement is either logical or illogical.
Logic can't be stupid, only people can be stupid, or dogs maybe.

"Stupid logic" is an example of a transferred epithet.
Other examples:

"restless night" — The night was not restless, but the person who was awake through it was.
"happy morning" — Mornings have no feelings, but the people who are awake through them do.
"female prison" — Prisons do not have genders, but the people who are inside them do.
"condemned cell" — It is not the cell that is condemned, but the person who is inside it.
"careless error" — The error is not careless, but the person who commits it is.
"distracted driving" — The driving is not distracted, but the person doing it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypallage
 
"Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating the newly formed heavy elements."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

do stars just get too heavy and explode or do they suck in something else big reach critical mass then explode... what happens to a nuke in space?
 
It seems to me that any claim that something was not necessary would be supported by showing all that was necessary and why this list can be asserted with confidence is the complete list.

I haven't heard we know all that was necessary to get the universe going. I would think there would be quite a bit of fanfare about this.
 
Back
Top