In response to Hawking's new stated position on God

[Trumble]

Thank you for doing the job of repeating myself yet again for me.

I don't suppose there's any chance of you pointing out this 'line of reasoning' supposedly quoted from Hawking and/or 'represented' by Bates (see #36) for the first time, is there?! :rollseyes

 

[Hugo]

If science is not the study of the natural world, then what is it? How can the supernatural enter into it? This sort of purported ambiguity in the very notion of science is the sort of thing that allows young earth creationist pseudo-science to thrive.

Who can say - my point was that it was your definition of science and as far as it goes I would go along with it but I remain open minded. I suppose what I am saying is that in say mathematics we can probe beyond what we can 'see' and this indeed is one of the reasons science exploded over the last 300 years - we don't have to sit around waiting and hoping for some data we can theorise about it and predict what data might be there and I gave a number of examples where this was true. Of course all this can be misused or misapplied but as always we fight reason or supposed reason with reason. So if someone holds to some theory or other that is fine as long as they appreciate it is always provisional and allow for the possibility of falsification.

It is simply amazing how so many people can boast rather than blush at the idea of modern science, by their own admission and interpretation, defying common sense. Our minds are the measure of what we conclude only--or should be the primary measure if not the sole one. Logic is the foundation of science, and therefore a necessary thing in it not to be faulty.

Not entirely sure what you mean here: If you mean all science is provisional then I agree but if you are saying all science defies common sense then that sounds like stupidity? Take for example, Paul Dirac, one of the founders of Quantum mechanics though perhaps most widely know for his famous equation and without that you would not for example have your mobile phone today.

If checking claims with the original source were the only means of confirming them, courtrooms and historians would have a lot harder time than they do.

In a court of law then we might very well look at the weight of evidence and balance of probabilities. But no one could go into a court of Law and cite God as a witness s what I have been saying. If I say God has spoken to me then you or anyone can take it or leave it there is no compulsion whatever to believe it or what I tell you God said. So I might say that God has told me that Bill is demon possessed and that is why he is acting strangely but although this indeed may be correct explanation there is no way I or anyone can show it to be true or false. If you know of some way of identifying when shall I say God speaks then share it with us?

Predicting outcomes is proving things now? Throwing around the term "a priori" like that is just as pointless and inapplicable as throwing around the term "ad hominem". Scientific deductions have nothing whatever to do with the "slapping the lable 'force' on things and leaving it at that" issue: indeed, it seems to exist to prevent any deductions from being made. It's a lazy gloss-over.

Again I am at a loss here. The whole point one supposes of a theory is that it is predictive. So If I quote Ohms law then I can a priori work out values of voltage, resistance and current and then go to the lab and see if it holds up to direct inspection. So here I am unsure if you understand the notion of deduction itself?

Your very words betray the emotional nature of your rationale. And were said rationale correct, it would still be starkly, even evasively, beside the point as far as this discussion goes. Even if God were an utter sadist and His design for the sole purpose of driving us crazy, it would not erase His existence. When we can agree to have established that rudimentary fact, then we can move on to the ethics of the being in question. It is useless to consider your opinion of a person's character when the issue at hand is whether he is real at all. And in this thread, very off topic.

To make any judgement at all one unavoidably needs emotions. I am not saying that our shall I say visible emotions are at work but it does seem to be inescapable (always happens) that the brain processes stimuli via the thalamus, neocortex (the "thinking brain") and then routed to the amygdala (the "emotional brain"). It is also I think known that if the amygdala is damaged in some way patients loose all ability to react normally or make decisions. If something can be simply analysed rationally it seems to me we should all come to the same conclusions but that does not seem to be the case does it even when we have exactly the same evidence? I think Mozart is sublime but my wife thinks all his pieces sound the same. So it seems to me your words betray a lack of understanding of how judgements are made.

We may not know how they arise, but they are still definitely caused events and not self-creating. We've been over the reasons why.

How are you so sure? Quantum theory is used all the time to make precise calculations so its reliable but Quantum field theory tells us that short-lived pairs of particles and their antiparticles are constantly being created and destroyed in apparently empty space - out of nothing. Now we still wait for evidence but if you take the position this can never be true you have effectively closed your mind and made it the measure of all things.

 

[Zafran]

Salaam

although it is still ramadan - I have to add that most of science is inductive and not deductive. Any theory or "reliable" experiment relies on inductive reasoning. Another point I would like to add is that science clearly does not have all the answers - there are simple things that we humans believe to be preety accurate although science would not be able to empirically verify it - For example the past ancestor times 1000 with no empirical (or historical) proof to back up for there existence. Even though we cannot empirically prove that the ancestor existed - most of us would be certian that there was one.

peace

 

[IAmZamzam]

Who can say - my point was that it was your definition of science and as far as it goes I would go along with it but I remain open minded. I suppose what I am saying is that in say mathematics we can probe beyond what we can 'see' and this indeed is one of the reasons science exploded over the last 300 years - we don't have to sit around waiting and hoping for some data we can theorise about it and predict what data might be there and I gave a number of examples where this was true. Of course all this can be misused or misapplied but as always we fight reason or supposed reason with reason. So if someone holds to some theory or other that is fine as long as they appreciate it is always provisional and allow for the possibility of falsification.

You seem to be awfully conversant about a subject that is supposedly so hard to define.

Not entirely sure what you mean here: If you mean all science is provisional then I agree but if you are saying all science defies common sense then that sounds like stupidity? Take for example, Paul Dirac, one of the founders of Quantum mechanics though perhaps most widely know for his famous equation and without that you would not for example have your mobile phone today.

I am saying exactly what I said. "Provisionality" doesn't even begin to enter into it. Stop trying to read between the lines: more often than not, they are exactly the blank space they look like.

In a court of law then we might very well look at the weight of evidence and balance of probabilities. But no one could go into a court of Law and cite God as a witness s what I have been saying. If I say God has spoken to me then you or anyone can take it or leave it there is no compulsion whatever to believe it or what I tell you God said. So I might say that God has told me that Bill is demon possessed and that is why he is acting strangely but although this indeed may be correct explanation there is no way I or anyone can show it to be true or false. If you know of some way of identifying when shall I say God speaks then share it with us?

How did I just know you would tow that line? Hyper-focus on one word of my analogy and use it to evade the point with one of your own which happens to share the same keyword? The law does not recognize the supernatural, because it is based in material sorts of evidence only, and so your courtroom question is as loaded as it is irrelevant. All I said is that checking a claim with its original source is not the only means of verifying it, and I'm not going to let you sidetrack us from that, because it is a simple fact that you know very well is true. (Besides, even if you could check a claim with its original source, that doesn't automatically verify it anyway: the reliability of the source would be another question. We have to use our reason first and foremost.)

Again I am at a loss here. The whole point one supposes of a theory is that it is predictive. So If I quote Ohms law then I can a priori work out values of voltage, resistance and current and then go to the lab and see if it holds up to direct inspection. So here I am unsure if you understand the notion of deduction itself?

Whatever. But you'll never be able to get far with a deduction (that of self-causation) which goes against the very basis of all logic in the first place. You may as well be trying to write a dissertation disproving linguistics itself. I have already explained in my OP why it is logically impossible (not merely against "common" sense, IMPOSSIBLE) for that to occur, and you have still yet to show me how it is wrong. And you never will.

To make any judgement at all one unavoidably needs emotions.

Maybe the way your mind works. Or the way you think it does.

I am not saying that our shall I say visible emotions are at work but it does seem to be inescapable (always happens) that the brain processes stimuli via the thalamus, neocortex (the "thinking brain") and then routed to the amygdala (the "emotional brain"). It is also I think known that if the amygdala is damaged in some way patients loose all ability to react normally or make decisions.

You do not understand the complex and extremely interconnected way the brain works. Needless to say, the different parts of the brain are not as segregated as you depict. It's one thing to see one of them at a time being stimulated in a CAT scan; it's another thing altogether to see how they operate with each other. Taking a route through a country on a car trip does not automatically entail picking up someone on the road there and taking them with you the rest of the way. My father is a psychiatrist, he could explain it better than I can. Maybe if you request I could consult him the next time I see him?

If something can be simply analysed rationally it seems to me we should all come to the same conclusions but that does not seem to be the case does it even when we have exactly the same evidence? I think Mozart is sublime but my wife thinks all his pieces sound the same. So it seems to me your words betray a lack of understanding of how judgements are made.

You seem to be saying that all matters of fact in the world are really only an illusory opinion. If that's the case, why do you hold any definite beliefs of your own at all? Do you really think that ten people reasoning on the same subject with their minds entirely drained of emotion at the moment will always come to the same conclusion? That emotion is the sole source of fallacy? We are not constructed to be that infallible in our mental processes on any level.

How are you so sure? Quantum theory is used all the time to make precise calculations so its reliable but Quantum field theory tells us that short-lived pairs of particles and their antiparticles are constantly being created and destroyed in apparently empty space - out of nothing. Now we still wait for evidence but if you take the position this can never be true you have effectively closed your mind and made it the measure of all things.

Your mind is just as much the measure of all things as my own. So is everyone else's. Were that not true, science itself neither could exist nor could have any reason to. Atheistic science touters have decided that until further evidence disproves it they'll assume that the unknown cause of certain fundamental quantum things is nonexistent. I assume that until the notion is disproved they are all just one more thread on the rug each, ultimately caused by the Weaver. They have their ghost in the machine: I have mine. The problem is, (a) I'm the one of us assuming what goes in accordance with easily demonstrated fundamentals of reasoning, and (b) while we theists are often labeled "delusional" by the sorts of skeptics I spoke of in the OP's opening paragraphs, we're still the only one of the two parties who accepts that we see a ghost in the machine, while the other make believes that theirs is just the machine itself.

P.S. I'm no physics expert (not by a mile) but I seem to remember an atheist fairly convincingly refuting Quantum Field Theory at infidels.org. It's one of the few convincing things you'll ever find there.

 

[CosmicPathos]

When Antony Flew changed his position regarding God, atheists attributed it to the decline in his mental faculties. In the same way we can attribute the change in Hawking's position to be a decline in mental faculties, more so when he has been struck with a disease of neurological nature.

 

[Hugo]

I am saying exactly what I said. "Provisionality" doesn't even begin to enter into it. Stop trying to read between the lines: more often than not, they are exactly the blank space they look like.

I don't follow you here - do you agree that all science is provisional in that we one supposes will never know everything so must be open for what might be round the corner? But do you have any confidence in science?

All I said is that checking a claim with its original source is not the only means of verifying it, and I'm not going to let you sidetrack us from that, because it is a simple fact that you know very well is true. (Besides, even if you could check a claim with its original source, that doesn't automatically verify it anyway: the reliability of the source would be another question. We have to use our reason first and foremost.)

Well you will have to explain what you mean. Now if its a scientific claim then I can check it scientifically. If its about what happened or what someone said ones first recourse is to find and verify the source or the original if that is possible and if not get as close to it as one can. Now I am not sure but you may be alluding to the point that it might be possible to say verify what someone said but at the same time what they said may be untrue or itself require verification. So you might be able to verify that I said "there are fairies at the bottom of my garden" but such verification does not make what I said true - is this your point?

But you'll never be able to get far with a deduction (that of self-causation) which goes against the very basis of all logic in the first place. You may as well be trying to write a dissertation disproving linguistics itself. I have already explained in my OP why it is logically impossible (not merely against "common" sense, IMPOSSIBLE) for that to occur, and you have still yet to show me how it is wrong. And you never will.

It make no sense to me to say that deduction goes against the basis of logic. Like any logical construct it falls or stand by the truth of its premises and this is I suppose what you mean. But surely there is nothing wrong in forming premises as say Einstein did with relativity and look for their proof later - that is what theorisation is.

You do not understand the complex and extremely interconnected way the brain works. Needless to say, the different parts of the brain are not as segregated as you depict. It's one thing to see one of them at a time being stimulated in a CAT scan; it's another thing altogether to see how they operate with each other. Taking a route through a country on a car trip does not automatically entail picking up someone on the road there and taking them with you the rest of the way. My father is a psychiatrist, he could explain it better than I can. Maybe if you request I could consult him the next time I see him?

Well I doubt anyone knows exactly how the brain works although what I presented is what is thought to be how the brain acts and one kind of proof is that if the amygdala is damaged a person loses all ability to make judgements even though they can reason perfectly well. Speak to you father and I am sure he will tell you that apart from damage to the brain almost nothing is known as to what causes mental illness and all psychiatrists do is treat symptoms.

You seem to be saying that all matters of fact in the world are really only an illusory opinion. If that's the case, why do you hold any definite beliefs of your own at all? Do you really think that ten people reasoning on the same subject with their minds entirely drained of emotion at the moment will always come to the same conclusion? That emotion is the sole source of fallacy? We are not constructed to be that infallible in our mental processes on any level.

No I don't think I said that but I do hold the view that a fact does not necessarily always lead to the same conclusion. There are of course natural facts like gravity which we cannot avoid and nominal facts which we can. So you might treat God as a fact but I might not. So fallacies arise either because the premises cannot be established or the reasoning itself is faulty and if emotion is there it show itself perhaps in what one might accept as true so we are back to judgement again since we cannot 'drain' ourself of it. But we could be here for days discussion the hundreds of fallacies that we know about.

Of course we are all limited by our mind but that is not the question, the question is do I know it, do you know it and is that awareness evident in what we say?

 

[IAmZamzam]

I don't follow you here - do you agree that all science is provisional in that we one supposes will never know everything so must be open for what might be round the corner?

I agree with it, but it has nothing to do with what I said.

But do you have any confidence in science?

Like so many academic fields it's headed by corrupt intelligentsia, and is often little more than a bloodthirsty race to get your results published first. But that doesn't change the fact that it does sometimes yield truth; however, one must remember that its starting with only secular premises, while necessary, is also potentially misleading. In short, I have more confidence in science in the abstract than I do in scientists.

Well you will have to explain what you mean. Now if its a scientific claim then I can check it scientifically. If its about what happened or what someone said ones first recourse is to find and verify the source or the original if that is possible and if not get as close to it as one can. Now I am not sure but you may be alluding to the point that it might be possible to say verify what someone said but at the same time what they said may be untrue or itself require verification. So you might be able to verify that I said "there are fairies at the bottom of my garden" but such verification does not make what I said true - is this your point

I'm very tired of explaining what I mean and very sorry that I can't make it clear to you, but you're in the ballpark.

It make no sense to me to say that deduction goes against the basis of logic. Like any logical construct it falls or stand by the truth of its premises and this is I suppose what you mean.

I said nothing of deduction itself, only of its use to a premise that goes against the foundation of logic that it stands on.

But surely there is nothing wrong in forming premises as say Einstein did with relativity and look for their proof later - that is what theorisation is.

You can theorize about anything, but that don't make it so. Do I have to repeat what I said in my opening post about why self-causation is impossible? Are you so unwilling to scroll up there and read it again? Or is your silent absence of refutation of it telling enough by itself?

Well I doubt anyone knows exactly how the brain works although what I presented is what is thought to be how the brain acts and one kind of proof is that if the amygdala is damaged a person loses all ability to make judgements even though they can reason perfectly well. Speak to you father and I am sure he will tell you that apart from damage to the brain almost nothing is known as to what causes mental illness and all psychiatrists do is treat symptoms.

He is always the first to say that psychiatrists don't really know much for sure, yes. A lot of psychiatrists are like that, I think. If only most of the other scientists would catch up. Lip service in the direction of the obvious does not amount to sincere recognition of it, and I perhaps see more dogmatism from quantum physics (or at least from those who tout it) than anything else in all of scholaticism despite it supposedly being the least certain of all. It's a favorite ploy of atheists. (To them, just to give one example, "quantum fluctuation" is magically transformed into a synonym for "uncaused event". But let's not get into that right now. I'm sick of it.)

No I don't think I said that but I do hold the view that a fact does not necessarily always lead to the same conclusion. There are of course natural facts like gravity which we cannot avoid and nominal facts which we can. So you might treat God as a fact but I might not.

Either He exists, or He does not. That is a fact. There is no escaping the dichotomy. A or not-A. It's not like just "sort of" exists or anything.

So fallacies arise either because the premises cannot be established or the reasoning itself is faulty and if emotion is there it show itself perhaps in what one might accept as true so we are back to judgement again since we cannot 'drain' ourself of it. But we could be here for days discussion the hundreds of fallacies that we know about.

Something tells me we're going to be here for days anyway.

Of course we are all limited by our mind but that is not the question, the question is do I know it, do you know it and is that awareness evident in what we say?

I already said that I know it, and so did you. Question asked, question answered. Jeez.

 

[IAmZamzam]

For one thing, something has to exist before it can perform any action or function such as creation. And if it already exists to begin with, that means it’s already been created.

End of story. No soup for you. NEXT!

 

[Trumble]

You are very casual in assuming that 'a law like gravity' falls within the set of things that can be (and therefore, according to you, must have been) 'created' according to the laws of cause and effect. We know that another set of things exists, with at least one member, causality itself as the idea that could have been 'created' is obviously absurd, as well as being denied by your own logic. You claim that set has another member, God. So why not gravity?

 

[Hugo]

Bit puzzled, in all your post you display a kind of authority about what you say, can you say why you are so sure? The trouble with certainty or wanting certainty is that whilst it might be comforting to ones ego if nothing else it can shut down your mind.

Like so many academic fields it's headed by corrupt intelligentsia, and is often little more than a bloodthirsty race to get your results published first. But that doesn't change the fact that it does sometimes yield truth; however, one must remember that its starting with only secular premises, while necessary, is also potentially misleading. In short, I have more confidence in science in the abstract than I do in scientists.

This is the kind of thing I mean - where is your evidence? Of course there is corruption and bad science and fraud but the very fact we know about them testifies that in the end the truth will emerge, but give us some references so we can see where you base this allegation. Do you extend this idea outside science to say theologians? I have no idea what a 'secular premise' is supposed to be, it sounds like you are saying that there is a secular gravity or ohms law - can you explain?

I said nothing of deduction itself, only of its use to a premise that goes against the foundation of logic that it stands on.

Can you give an example? Logic might be described as a process of deciding when an argument is valid and part of that is the premise (starting points, things that we accept as true as far as the argument is concerned. Premises may be descriptive (Hugo is a man) or prescriptive (Hugo must become educated) and from this we can reach conclusion. There of course some standard forms according to Aristotle: Modus Ponendo Ponens, Modus Tollendo Tollens etc. Now the point is that any argument is valid when there is no way (meaning no possible way) that the premises could be true without the conclusions also being true. However, when one argues inductively it is unfortunately true that the premises can be all true and yet the conclusion false and that is why deduction is to be preferred. So what you say make no sense to me unless you have other foundations for logic or perhaps you take the Russell position that all logic is ultimately flawed?

You can theorize about anything, but that don't make it so. Do I have to repeat what I said in my opening post about why self-causation is impossible? Are you so unwilling to scroll up there and read it again? Or is your silent absence of refutation of it telling enough by itself?

Yes of course but theorisation is just one way of exploring a topic effectively, no one pretends that the very act of theorisation make something true, that would be absurd. I cannot see you have shown self-causation is impossible by telling us that a rug can't weave itself. You may be right and all that I think anyone else is saying that certain kind of theorization might suggest otherwise so the jury so to speak is out and we just have to wait and see - but that is the game we are in we need to theorise and at the same time be sceptical and I cannot see what is wring with that?

 

[IAmZamzam]

As someone said above, it is highly indicative that no one has been responding to the actual arguments I made in the paper. Every question, every counter, every back-and-forth, has only been an off topic sidetrack. I reiterated this with my last post, and of course everyone is still ignoring it, as they will if I make nine more posts in a row giving the same quote (or any other from the OP). I am tired of indulging your evasions. If you want to talk about why gravity is caused or anything like that, start another thread. Unless I finally see some on-topic responses here, I'm out of this one.

 

[جوري]

actually Hugo is perpetually confused .. whatever it is you are arguing for or against, he'll find a way to have a polarized view, just to cement his otherwise useless presence on the forum...
and now the latest, he was so certain, but now he is deeply troubled by your certainty and your authority sounding display of it.. it is tedious and at times plenty hilarious.. if you enjoy useless back and forth drivel then welcome to his playground!

 

[Trumble]

As someone said above, it is highly indicative that no one has been responding to the actual arguments I made in the paper. Every question, every counter, every back-and-forth, has only been an off topic sidetrack. I reiterated this with my last post, and of course everyone is still ignoring it, as they will if I make nine more posts in a row giving the same quote (or any other from the OP). I am tired of indulging your evasions. If you want to talk about why gravity is caused or anything like that, start another thread. Unless I finally see some on-topic responses here, I'm out of this one.

Oh, please., spare us the sanctimonious twaddle. 'Why gravity is caused or anything like that', if you are referring to my post above, is about as on-topic as you can get, assuming of course you still wish us to believe your 'arguments' in the OP have anything to do with those of Hawking, to which you claim to be 'responding'. Hawking is talking about, amazingly enough, GRAVITY!

The only poster evading anything is you; I doubt you are even fooling your cheerleader any more (if you ever were!) Try answering the point raised in #49. Try telling us what arguments you are actually 'responding' too as well.. yes, I'm repeating myself yet again, but sadly you keep refusing to give an answer. It is rather traditional in debating a response to a position to know what that first position actually is, after all.. wouldn't you agree?

 

[Hugo]

As someone said above, it is highly indicative that no one has been responding to the actual arguments I made in the paper. Every question, every counter, every back-and-forth, has only been an off topic sidetrack. I reiterated this with my last post, and of course everyone is still ignoring it, as they will if I make nine more posts in a row giving the same quote (or any other from the OP). I am tired of indulging your evasions. If you want to talk about why gravity is caused or anything like that, start another thread. Unless I finally see some on-topic responses here, I'm out of this one.

Well just present your questions/arguments one at a time and let see how we go. But in the meantime perhaps you would like to consider the following list where each theorisation was met by it seems people like you who are so sure of themselves and all subsequently proved true and momentous.

1. Electromagnetism by Faraday in 1821
2. Bayes theorem in 1764
3. Gyroscopes in 1903
4. Imaginary numbers in 1560
5. Epigenetics in 1926
6. Prions in 1972
7. Heliciobacter pylori as a cause of ulcers in 1984
8. Digital telecommunications in 1930

 

[جوري]

Well just present your questions/arguments one at a time and let see how we go. But in the meantime perhaps you would like to consider the following list where each theorisation was met by it seems people like you who are so sure of themselves and all subsequently proved true and momentous.

1. Electromagnetism by Faraday in 1821
2. Bayes theorem in 1764
3. Gyroscopes in 1903
4. Imaginary numbers in 1560
5. Epigenetics in 1926
6. Prions in 1972
7. Heliciobacter pylori as a cause of ulcers in 1984
8. Digital telecommunications in 1930

perhaps you'd like to consider the following theorized true proven laughable and hilarious.

1- the belief was that the failure to menstruate caused the uterus to travel around the body, eventually negatively influencing the brain as such the treatment for 'hysteria' was a hysterectomy!
2-August Breisky rejecting the idea of washing hands before delivering infants as a way to reduce mortality further calling the idea as "the Koran of puerperal theology'' amusingly pompous on top of ignorant. which isn't uncommon amongst westerners!
3-Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier discovery of the 'vulcan' the non-existing planet
4-Anaximander, Hippolytus, and Anaxagoras hypothesis on spontaneous generation
5- Johan Joachim Becher phlogiston theory
6-Einstein’s Static Universe

amongst many, I don't have the time to list failed theories and Quakeries to make a non-point as they can all be so easily googled.. Question is do you have a point? have you ever had a point? Will you ever get a point and make it worthwhile instead of taking up web-space on unrelated drivel both to the topic and to the person(s) of whom you are addressing.. So strange how we notice this from you on almost every thread. I hope to God you can find a vocation that offers some service to mankind, as I can think of no greater ill than to be an ignoramus and fancying yourself an Illuminati!


all the best

 

[Hugo]

perhaps you'd like to consider the following theorized true proven laughable and hilarious.

1- the belief was that the failure to menstruate caused the uterus to travel around the body, eventually negatively influencing the brain as such the treatment for 'hysteria' was a hysterectomy!
2-August Breisky rejecting the idea of washing hands before delivering infants as a way to reduce mortality further calling the idea as "the Koran of puerperal theology'' amusingly pompous on top of ignorant. which isn't uncommon amongst westerners!
3-Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier discovery of the 'vulcan' the non-existing planet
4-Anaximander, Hippolytus, and Anaxagoras hypothesis on spontaneous generation
5- Johan Joachim Becher phlogiston theory
6-Einstein’s Static Universe

You should try to read what people wrote and if you had done that you would see that I mentioned things that were thought by the establishment to be of no value but subsequently they were all proved right. You in contrast mentioned things that were thought to be true and subsequently shown to be wrong - though how you considered them "..true proved.." is anyone's guess. It is not unusual to get things wrong and almost every scientist does that sometime and here one might point to the great Muslim polymath Ibn Sina and his The Canon of Medicine which of course now is of little value to anyone but he would have understood that science progresses by seeking knowledge whatever its source. The point is one has to sceptical, one has to see each result as provisional with an open mind but not at the same time be so arrogant about what you know that you miss what others are saying.

 

[جوري]

You should try to read what people wrote and if you had done that you would see that I mentioned things that were thought by the establishment to be of no value but subsequently they were all proved right. You in contrast mentioned things that were thought to be true and subsequently shown to be wrong

I have read what you've written, hence my comment, did you have a point with what you've spewed here? Who are you in the scheme of things to render something dynamic or ludicrous? any theory can be phenomenal or can fizzle and we've seen how they have fizzled, only you seem to believe that you hold the secret to finding out what is phenomenal and what is ludicrous, in an equally absurd fashion to the turd who made the 'koran' akin to naivete.. apparently the naivete with his to keep and twice as he'll not escape from history which has highlighted his name a synonym to stupidity and perhaps your name some day if you are so lucky to make your foolishness more public!
You aren't anymore enlightened or theoretically accurate than anyone who theorizes, you seem to think that putting English words together has some value but in all actuality outside of the all too frequent refuse you part with, you are unable to think of an original idea or challenge one.. All you do is list ISBN's to books I guarantee you haven't read as is obvious from what you write and what we have caught you writing previously. You have NO credibility, none whatsoever!

- though how you considered them "..true proved.." is anyone's guess.

I imagine that to be a mutual thing, although at least I have a higher education with which to discern the bull, what about you, what do you have to consider something proven true or false? you couldn't even get two statistics questions correctly on a thread that you've preferred to otherwise drown in unrelated logorrhea!

It is not unusual to get things wrong and almost every scientist does that sometime and here one might point to the great Muslim polymath Ibn Sina and his The Canon of Medicine which of course now is of little value to anyone but he would have understood that science progresses by seeking knowledge whatever its source. The point is one has to sceptical, one has to see each result as provisional with an open mind but not at the same time be so arrogant about what you know that you miss what others are saying.

What you say and repeatedly is of no value and that is the point we have been collectively trying to make, and collectively showcasing why.. as to why these morsels are obvious to everyone but you is truly anyone's guess...

good luck with all of that!

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Yahya Sulaiman, perhaps you could read the following and clarify for us:

I have read what you've written, hence my comment, did you have a point with what you've spewed here? Who are you in the scheme of things to render something dynamic or ludicrous? any theory can be phenomenal or can fizzle and we've seen how they have fizzled, only you seem to believe that you hold the secret to finding out what is phenomenal and what is ludicrous, in an equally absurd fashion to the turd who made the 'koran' akin to naivete.. apparently the naivete with his to keep and twice as he'll not escape from history which has highlighted his name a synonym to stupidity and perhaps your name some day if you are so lucky to make your foolishness more public!
You aren't anymore enlightened or theoretically accurate than anyone who theorizes, you seem to think that putting English words together has some value but in all actuality outside of the all too frequent refuse you part with, you are unable to think of an original idea or challenge one.. All you do is list ISBN's to books I guarantee you haven't read as is obvious from what you write and what we have caught you writing previously. You have NO credibility, none whatsoever!

I imagine that to be a mutual thing, although at least I have a higher education with which to discern the bull, what about you, what do you have to consider something proven true or false? you couldn't even get two statistics questions correctly on a thread that you've preferred to otherwise drown in unrelated logorrhea!
What you say and repeatedly is of no value and that is the point we have been collectively trying to make, and collectively showcasing why.. as to why these morsels are obvious to everyone but you is truly anyone's guess...

good luck with all of that!

Now THAT is what I call an ad hominem. What do you think?

Peace

 

[جوري]

Greetings,

Yahya Sulaiman, perhaps you could read the following and clarify for us:



Now THAT is what I call an ad hominem. What do you think?

Peace

To the readers at large, is what I call a 'deus ex machina'!
what do you think? the minute the poor sap is at a loss of something substantial as pertains to the topic, he'll focus on 'English' or derail the thread in an attempt to save another sap's ill-thought refuse.. and then PM you if your lucky to protest your observations on his asthenic logic in a public fashion as deserved!

 

[IAmZamzam]

Oh, please., spare us the sanctimonious twaddle. 'Why gravity is caused or anything like that', if you are referring to my post above, is about as on-topic as you can get, assuming of course you still wish us to believe your 'arguments' in the OP have anything to do with those of Hawking, to which you claim to be 'responding'. Hawking is talking about, amazingly enough, GRAVITY!

Such misrepresentation. I wonder if you read the entire OP at all. This is what it said:

“’Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,’ the pair write, in an extract published in today's London Times. ‘Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.’”

Except that there must have been something to light the paper with, and something to have ignited it and set it to the paper. It seems ridiculous that I should actually have to explain that and why things can’t create themselves, let alone out of nothing, but all right. For one thing, something has to exist before it can perform any action or function such as creation. And if it already exists to begin with, that means it’s already been created, and furthermore...oh, enough of this. Like I said, it shouldn’t bear explaining. (Additionally, even if it were not necessary to invoke God, that would not mean that He’s not there. “Necessary” and “real” are two very different concepts, and thus to say that an absence of necessity indicates an absence of reality is to speak in non-sequiturs.)

It’s not enough that the word “gravity” is in it. The whole thing (in that part of the paper, anyway) was about self-creation. My point would have remained the same had Hawking said, instead of “gravity”, “the electro-weak force”, “the strong nuclear force”, “the mathematical transitive law”, or “Eat at Joe’s”.

The only poster evading anything is you; I doubt you are even fooling your cheerleader any more (if you ever were!) Try answering the point raised in #49. Try telling us what arguments you are actually 'responding' too as well.. yes, I'm repeating myself yet again, but sadly you keep refusing to give an answer. It is rather traditional in debating a response to a position to know what that first position actually is, after all.. wouldn't you agree?

The irony kills me. If that question doesn’t prove you didn’t read the article, nothing can. Not only did I say what arguments I was responding to every time, I used direct quotations. If it helps to ignore all proper nouns in the article, or replace them with “John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt”, feel free to do so. I cannot aid a lack of reading comprehension. You’re just going to have to deal with that on your own.