Prof Hawkins views

[rhys 0]

Quote

>Understood, but wild buffalo would probably not tiptoe across the lawn
>and a heard would probably leave turd or two as evidence.

Exactly!

>We know about reproduction, but we do not know about the outer
>limits of the universe.

We know a lot about both. We don't know everything about both, not by a long shot. We _think_ we know a lot about reproduction because we're very familiar with it and it happens every day - and we can see the results.

>Show me one individual that claims to know how large the universe
>actually is where it's boarders are and what lies beyond?

See the man referenced in the beginning of this thread.

>Anyone that made such a claim would have to be lying as our technology is
>not yet capable of such observatons.

No more so than you are lying when you claim to have a great-great-great-great-grandfather. Can you prove it? No. Can you be pretty certain that you had one? Yes.

That's science for ya. Do we know exactly how big the universe is? No. Do we have a pretty good idea? Yes.

Stevo may have an idea of what lies as far as humans can see, but he nor nobody can be sure that is the edge of our universe.

Much like Europeans didn't know much about the South Pacific before they explored it.

Try to imagine what stevo claims is the edge of the univers as the shores of a country with a great ocean between what lies beyond.

We have oceans, we have voids between planets, sloar systems/stars why not 'sections' of our universe.

If something was dicovered beyond that void would it be a part of our universe or another universe or something completely different? That comes down to what we humans claim it to be, but our diecisions or discoveries play no part in explaining how everything came to be or what it was the created it.

Either there was nothing before everything came to existance or everything alwayes existed in some form or another.

It seems scientists believe we can 'potentially' trace our universe to a single point. That is only our universe.

We can only comprehend what we know, or observe. What we cannot observe we will never know, and using the scentific method, the unknown dwarfs the known by a staggering seemingly uncalculable figure, Maybe that figure is infinity?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[billvon 2,400]

>If something was dicovered beyond that void would it be a part of
>our universe or another universe or something completely different?

It would not be part of our universe; things in our universe could not affect it.

>We can only comprehend what we know, or observe.

Oh, we can comprehend far more than that. You said you believe that you have a great-great-great-great-grandfather even though you may have not known him or indeed ever seen him. We can comprehend abstract math that has no analog in the real world. We can plan for events that we can barely guess at.

>We have oceans, we have voids between planets, sloar systems/stars
>why not 'sections' of our universe.

There are definitely sections of our universe. But they all end at the wavefront of the Big Bang. That defines the edge of our universe; nothing can get beyond that, because nothing can transmit information faster than light.

>It seems scientists believe we can 'potentially' trace our universe to a single
>point. That is only our universe.

Very true - and there are very likely other universes.

However, they're not "neighbors" in the sense that houses are next to each other. They are orthogonal to each other, and cannot directly interact. (Which, when you think about it, is a good thing.)

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

Which basically means that YOU (and Turtlespeed) don't understand them. Of course, in this you have lots of company. But, how much effort have you put into learning the requisite mathematics? Otherwise, why would you presume the universe should be simple enough for you to understand without putting in the effort? Don't you think there is a reason why it takes years of learning before anyone is in a position to contribute original research to physics (or chemistry, or biology, or any other science)?

Your inability to understand (or intelligently critique) Hawking's theories says nothing about their validity, it only suggests you haven't considered the subject important enough to invest the effort to learn to speak the language. In all honesty I don't have the background to critique his theories either, but I wouldn't assume he's wrong just because I can't follow every nuance of his arguments, or because they just don't "feel" right to me.

You just made the same argument most church elders make.

Difference is you believe Hawkins to be right and believe religion to be wrong.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

You just made the same argument most church elders make.

Difference is you believe Hawkins to be right and believe religion to be wrong.

No, that's not the difference.

The difference is, only one side uses the scientific method.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

I still haven't heard a convincing argument for what made the big bang . . . go "bang".

THAT would be a very important factor, no?

I will show you proof. I have a video of it happening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw9L0EAZ8Tc





______________________________________________________________________________________________________
1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend)

The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

I still haven't heard a convincing argument for what made the big bang . . . go "bang".

THAT would be a very important factor, no?

I will show you proof. I have a video of it happening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw9L0EAZ8Tc

That could be just a s likely.




______________________________________________________________________________________________________
1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend)

The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Quote

Which basically means that YOU (and Turtlespeed) don't understand them. Of course, in this you have lots of company. But, how much effort have you put into learning the requisite mathematics? Otherwise, why would you presume the universe should be simple enough for you to understand without putting in the effort? Don't you think there is a reason why it takes years of learning before anyone is in a position to contribute original research to physics (or chemistry, or biology, or any other science)?

Your inability to understand (or intelligently critique) Hawking's theories says nothing about their validity, it only suggests you haven't considered the subject important enough to invest the effort to learn to speak the language. In all honesty I don't have the background to critique his theories either, but I wouldn't assume he's wrong just because I can't follow every nuance of his arguments, or because they just don't "feel" right to me.

You just made the same argument most church elders make.

Difference is you believe Hawkins to be right and believe religion to be wrong.

Perhaps I underestimated you, and if so I apologize. Feel free to explain your specific criticisms of his theories, and postulate your own. If I don't currently have the requisite math and physics skills, I'll make an effort to get up to speed enough to follow your arguments. I expect you have specific instances where astronomical observations are in conflict with predictions from Hawkins' theories, and your own theories account for the data better.

That's how it works. You have to have data. It's not enough that a theory doesn't seem right to you, or you can't understand it. Lots of people are uncomfortable with evolution, quantum mechanics, or relativity, but they do an extremely good job of accounting for experimental evidence. They will stand until some other theory comes along that does an even better job of accounting for reality, as revealed through experimentation and skeptical observation. The fact that most people don't understand molecular biology, and can't quite believe things could really be that complicated, is no impediment to cells functioning normally.

I do hope you weren't just talking through your stomach.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[SkyDekker 1,123]

You defended Hawkins while admitting you don't understand his theories.

I merely pointed out that religous people do the same thing.

[quade 3]

Quote

You defended Hawkins while admitting you don't understand his theories.

The question is, what level of understanding is necessary for the tipping point of a "belief" to be considered the "truth"?

If a person simply and blindly "believes" without examining any evidence, then their threshold for that belief is pretty low. It didn't take much to convince them. Most children under a certain age (let's call it seven for the sake of convenience) will believe in Santa Claus with little more than a story in a picture book and a promise of presents if they behave.

The Law of Primacy plays a part as well. Once somebody is convinced something is true, it takes far more to convince them it's not than it did to convince them originally.

I'm not convinced a person needs to be able to build an airplane from scratch in order to understand the basics of how they fly. In much the same way, I'm not certain a person needs to understand every "mystery of the universe" in order to have a fundamental grasp of The Big Bang Theory or evolution.

If you've ever heard the rise and falling tone of a train whistle as it passes, you've experienced the Doppler Effect. If you've ever been given a radar speeding ticket, you "believe" in it enough to pay the fine without questioning it's existence or even knowing the voltage or frequency involved. In all likelihood, neither does the cop or judge, but you've all agreed the radar gun shows the "truth" of how fast the car was going.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

You defended Hawkins while admitting you don't understand his theories.

The question is, what level of understanding is necessary for the tipping point of a "belief" to be considered the "truth"?

If a person simply and blindly "believes" without examining any evidence, then their threshold for that belief is pretty low. It didn't take much to convince them. Most children under a certain age (let's call it seven for the sake of convenience) will believe in Santa Claus with little more than a story in a picture book and a promise of presents if they behave.

The Law of Primacy plays a part as well. Once somebody is convinced something is true, it takes far more to convince them it's not than it did to convince them originally.

I'm not convinced a person needs to be able to build an airplane from scratch in order to understand the basics of how they fly. In much the same way, I'm not certain a person needs to understand every "mystery of the universe" in order to have a fundamental grasp of The Big Bang Theory or evolution.

If you've ever heard the rise and falling tone of a train whistle as it passes, you've experienced the Doppler Effect. If you've ever been given a radar speeding ticket, you "believe" in it enough to pay the fine without questioning it's existence or even knowing the voltage or frequency involved. In all likelihood, neither does the cop or judge, but you've all agreed the radar gun shows the "truth" of how fast the car was going.

You contradict yourself.

By definition, Theory is NOT proof.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 3]

Where did I use the word proof?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Where did I use the word proof?

You are correct, I should have typed "truth".

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Where did I use the word proof?

You are correct, I should have typed "truth".

Proof and truth are also two completely different words.

Do you love your spouse? If you say "yes", that may or may not be the truth. Either way, I doubt you can show definitive "proof."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Where did I use the word proof?

You are correct, I should have typed "truth".

Proof and truth are also two completely different words.

Do you love your spouse? If you say "yes", that may or may not be the truth. Either way, I doubt you can show definitive "proof."

So what you are saying is that you believe.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 3]

Quote

So what you are saying is that you believe.

Correct. I believe there is no proof of the existence of god.

If you have any, please show it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

So what you are saying is that you believe.

Correct. I believe there is no proof of the existence of god.

If you have any, please show it.

I could - but you wouldn't accept it anyway.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So what you are saying is that you believe.

Correct. I believe there is no proof of the existence of god.

If you have any, please show it.

I could - but you wouldn't accept it anyway.

You could not.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
I could - but you wouldn't accept it anyway.

Let's see. I'm waiting - full of expectation.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So what you are saying is that you believe.

Correct. I believe there is no proof of the existence of god.

If you have any, please show it.

I could - but you wouldn't accept it anyway.

You could not.

I could.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Actually, I understand his theories well enough to follow the logic and principles. More importantly, I described the rational basis on which any theory may be falsified, and replaced with a new theory that more accurately describes reality. In principle, any person can invest the time to learn the necessary skills to personally test any scientific theory (although it might be very expensive to do so). I believe religion lacks any similar objective basis by which one may evaluate theologies. Also, in science all theories are understood to be conditional, in that they can in principle be falsified (if their predictions fail to match experimental observation), but they can't be proven to be true. If a theory withstands a lots of rigorous testing, we may come to believe it's likely a very good approximation of reality, but if we're honest we recognize that even if the theory is perfect (i.e. true) we could never prove that. None of these attributes apply to religion, as there is no objective test by which one religion can be weighed against another. So when you equate accepting a scientific theory as "consistent with the data to date" to accepting a religious edict based on the "authority" of the author of the pronouncement, you are just wrong.

Anyway, hope you (and everybody) have a safe, jump-filled weekend.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Remster 24]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So what you are saying is that you believe.

Correct. I believe there is no proof of the existence of god.

If you have any, please show it.

I could - but you wouldn't accept it anyway.

You could not.

I could.

I'm sure you could, but you simply chose not to.

Probably the same reason why I chose not to show you people how I travel at a speed faster than c.

Remster

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So what you are saying is that you believe.

Correct. I believe there is no proof of the existence of god.

If you have any, please show it.

I could - but you wouldn't accept it anyway.

You could not.

I could.

No, you couldn't.

I know from past threads that you struggle with the definitions of words like theory, fact, evidence and proof so you may not understand why you're wrong but trust me, you're wrong.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

....
I could - but you wouldn't accept it anyway.

Let's see. I'm waiting - full of expectation.

You wouldn't accept it, I'll not waste my time.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

Quote

....
I could - but you wouldn't accept it anyway.

Let's see. I'm waiting - full of expectation.

You wouldn't accept it, I'll not waste my time.

As opposed to the hundreds, possibly thousands, of posts you've made in this forum arguing other issues against people who you know will almost certainly fail to accept your arguments? But this time, even though you've got proof (real proof!) to offer... it's a waste of time.

How convenient.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wmw999 2,123]

Quote

You wouldn't accept it, I'll not waste my time.

I believe in God; but I completely disagree that religion (particularly any particular flavor) can be proven. I believe that's the whole point of calling it faith.

Calling it proof indicates that it stands up to critical examination. "I believe" is not critical examination.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)