AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

To save writing this all out twice I give a link to my article in Hastings Humanists:-http://hastingshumanists.blogspot.com/2010/09/hawking-ditches-god.html-You can't now read the Times on line without paying a fee.-The Guardian has a lot of comment on the same subject.

--
GPJ

6347 views

To save writing this all out twice I give a link to my article in Hastings Humanists:
> 
> http://hastingshumanists.blogspot.com/2010/09/hawking-ditches-god.html&#10... 
> You can't now read the Times on line without paying a fee.
> 
> The Guardian has a lot of comment on the same subject.-Very nice web design, by the way! -As for the content on the blogpost, it's kind of... well I've heard Hawking talk before that he has referred to God only as the initial creation event, and not at all as a physical/metaphysical entity. So it's kinda misleading to say he's "ditched God." In my eyes that ship has well sailed. -I really must say again though, well done on the site!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6241 views

The website design is mostly based on a template that comes with Blogspot. Anyone can open a blog for free. I've just tweaked some of the colour scheme.-The reactions of the archbishops and rabbis doesn't suggest to me that what Hawking says is nothing new. He is taking into account the latest thinking. Rowan Williams seems to think that the function of God is to make reality possible, or to maintain everything in existence, which seems a pretty feeble role, compared to more traditional views.

--
GPJ

6200 views

Review of Hawking by Penrose-http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/bdf3ae28-b6e9-11df-b3dd-00144feabdc0.html-Interview with his co-author Mlodinow-http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/03/5040535-is-the-grand-design-within-our-grasp-It includes a video by Lawrence Krauss about something from nothing,
and a lot more physics and cosmology!

--
GPJ

6322 views

Actually, having just listened to the last part of Krauss's talk I was a bit disappointed with it. He left out some bits that he was going to say and ended up with a question about infinity, which he answered with the Hilbert's Hotel story. All the rest of his talk seems to me to imply that the universe is finite. It is only infinite in the sense that the universe goes on expanding, and doesn't come to a definite big crunch type end.

--
GPJ

6287 views

Actually, having just listened to the last part of Krauss's talk I was a bit disappointed with it. He left out some bits that he was going to say and ended up with a question about infinity, which he answered with the Hilbert's Hotel story. All the rest of his talk seems to me to imply that the universe is finite. It is only infinite in the sense that the universe goes on expanding, and doesn't come to a definite big crunch type end.-The latest studies in astronomy using gravitational 'lensing' has confirmed that space is flat and will expand forever, confirming Krauss. I noted this in a previous entry within the past two weeks.

6322 views

Review of Hawking by Penrose
> 
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/bdf3ae28-b6e9-11df-b3dd-00144feabdc0.html
> 
> Interview with his co-author Mlodinow
> 
> http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/03/5040535-is-the-grand-design-within-our-... 
> It includes a video by Lawrence Krauss about something from nothing,
> and a lot more physics and cosmology!-Peter Woit's and Lee Smolin's books would strongly disagree. Seems as if Hawking is using a faith as strong as mine. M theory is totally unproven theory with beautiful math.

6355 views

Review of Hawking by Penrose
> > 
> > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/bdf3ae28-b6e9-11df-b3dd-00144feabdc0.html
> > 
> > Interview with his co-author Mlodinow
> > 
> > http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/03/5040535-is-the-grand-design-within-our-... > 
> > It includes a video by Lawrence Krauss about something from nothing,
> > and a lot more physics and cosmology!
> 
> Peter Woit's and Lee Smolin's books would strongly disagree. Seems as if Hawking is using a faith as strong as mine. M theory is totally unproven theory with beautiful math.-Seems as if other British scientists recognize the true role of philosophy of science as it relates to conjectures by Hawking, and puncture his balloon.-http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html

6489 views

http://fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate

6402 views

Many thanks to George for the references to various websites and blogs (especially the excellent Hastings Humanists) concerning this, the latest science sensation. The reviews that I've read have been mixed, and if the interview with Mlodinow is anything to go by, I'm not surprised. No-one quite seems to know what M-theory is all about, or indeed whether it is a theory or a "network of theories". Amid various coulds and cans, we are told:-"You can't ask which of the theories in the network is more "real"." 
"The universe has many histories and not one."
"The vagueness of the past is the vagueness of things unmeasured in the past."-Is this science or mysticism? 
 
At the end of the interview Mlodinow is asked whether the grand design is unknowable.-MLODINOW: No, we believe that humans CAN understand it. That's the great triumph and the great miracle of the universe.-The fact that we exist and that we have powers of understanding is indeed a great triumph and a great miracle. Can M-theory tell us whether the triumph and miracle are the product of blind chance or of a "grand designer"? The argument that once we know how it all happened (which we don't), a designer becomes unnecessary will only convince those who are prepared to believe that the grand design unconsciously designed itself. One faith in place of another. I'm getting more and more solidly stuck on my fence.-I'm also grateful to George for giving us his views on the Krauss talk. Apparently it implies that the universe is finite, and is only infinite in the sense that it goes on expanding. May I, as a non-scientist, ask two silly questions: 1) what does it expand into? 2) If the universe appears to be finite, is there any way in which we can possibly know what lies beyond its boundaries?

6184 views


> May I, as a non-scientist, ask two silly questions: 1) what does it expand into? 2) If the universe appears to be finite, is there any way in which we can possibly know what lies beyond its boundaries?-As the universe expands it makes a larger space-time inside. Outside: void, nothing, other universes? And if we could look to the edge "wall" we could not look through it as light would curve back on itself. We are bound to know only what is in this universe.

6358 views

To save writing this all out twice I give a link to my article in Hastings Humanists:
> > 
> > http://hastingshumanists.blogspot.com/2010/09/hawking-ditches-god.html&#10... > 
> > You can't now read the Times on line without paying a fee.
> > 
> > The Guardian has a lot of comment on the same subject.
> 
> Very nice web design, by the way! 
> 
> As for the content on the blogpost, it's kind of... well I've heard Hawking talk before that he has referred to God only as the initial creation event, and not at all as a physical/metaphysical entity. So it's kinda misleading to say he's "ditched God." In my eyes that ship has well sailed. 
> 
> I really must say again though, well done on the site!--I never thought Hawkings literally meant 'the mind of god'. He is like Einstein I think. I must second the 'well done'. Thanks for showing us the site. well worth following. By the way, Maimonides used only the first six verses to describe the Big Bang Theory about 900 years ago. Rabbi Sachs refers to all 36 verses for origin and I don't know why. Genesis really included origin and subsequest events.

6395 views

To save writing this all out twice I give a link to my article in Hastings Humanists:
> > > 
> > > http://hastingshumanists.blogspot.com/2010/09/hawking-ditches-god.html&#10... > > 
> > > You can't now read the Times on line without paying a fee.
> > > 
> > > The Guardian has a lot of comment on the same subject.
> > 
> > Very nice web design, by the way! 
> > 
> > As for the content on the blogpost, it's kind of... well I've heard Hawking talk before that he has referred to God only as the initial creation event, and not at all as a physical/metaphysical entity. So it's kinda misleading to say he's "ditched God." In my eyes that ship has well sailed. 
> > 
> > I really must say again though, well done on the site!
> 
> 
> 
> I never thought Hawkings literally meant 'the mind of god'. He is like Einstein I think. I must second the 'well done'. Thanks for showing us the site. well worth following. By the way, Maimonides used only the first six verses to describe the Big Bang Theory about 900 years ago. Rabbi Sachs refers to all 36 verses for origin and I don't know why. Genesis really included origin and subsequest events.-A couple of Hawking Quotes:-"...At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he didn't know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death! [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 115-16.]"-I get the feeling here that here that he's definitely not a theist of any description...-Or: [emphasis added]-"The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.]"-And finally:-"...The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]"

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6273 views

A couple of Hawking Quotes:
> 
> ...space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation.
 
> ..The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. 
> 
>... if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be.-Who is quoting who? Stephen quoting me or I him? Of course these are all "if's" but they were my if's first (jk)! Obviously he and I run along the same space time continuum wave but he with better language and motor skills to express how he "see's" what IS, as well as a larger audience. -Patting the dust off my unpatted back.-bb

6275 views

BBella, referring to various Hawking quotes supplied by Matt, quite rightly points out that she had long ago mooted the idea of a universe without beginning and without end, that simply IS and always has been.-Put in these bald terms, the theory is not exactly new, but you should indeed have your back patted, and I'm proud that AgnosticWeb is the vehicle that has carried your message to the ends of the earth ... or at least to the happy few that occasionally log on!-I've just checked my own edition of Brief History (1988) ... (if only to show you all that I've got one!) ... and am surprised to see (p. 50) that Hawking and Penrose actually "proved" the big bang singularity in 1970, but then Hawking changed his mind: "It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe ... as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account." -And yet a couple of months ago, we were talking as if the big bang was still the "in" theory, and we were treated to learned discourses on how nothing can go bang. However, we still have to face the fact that none of these theories or networks of theories tell us anything except what might possibly have happened (or not happened), and of course they shed no light on the origin of life or consciousness. Matt's brilliantly chosen quotes (thank you) give us a clear summary of "the quantum theory of gravity" full of conditional clauses. As BBella says, it's all "if". The M-theory/network seems to be no different. However, let's just consider Matt's final quote from Brief History: -"But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" -One might argue that the universe IS the creator. The question then would be whether it has awareness of itself and of what it is doing. Is it just a vast mass of matter and energy ... with life and consciousness emerging as the product of an astonishing series of accidents ... or does it have an intelligence of its own (which some would call God)? BBella, you are our prophetess. Perhaps you can remind us of your theory of intelligence and its relationship to matter and energy.

6247 views


> "But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" 
> 
> One might argue that the universe IS the creator. The question then would be whether it has awareness of itself and of what it is doing. Is it just a vast mass of matter and energy ... with life and consciousness emerging as the product of an astonishing series of accidents ... or does it have an intelligence of its own?-You know my answer. The universe is intelligent. But I wonder about the Hawking quote above. If the universe is expanding from a central point, however it started: Bang, quantum fluctuation, etc., then our space-time is expanding like a big balloon into whatever IS NOT out there, i.e., nothing. Space time is flat, according to the latest findings. However if we try to reach an edge we will simply curve back on ourselves within our universe. We can 'see' out to the area of 300,000 years after the Big Bang (if I may use that term advisedly). At that 'place' we pick up the background radiation from the 'Bang'. How do we make that measurement if there is no 'edge"? And finally, from Leibnitz, 'why is there anything?', and Hawking can't answer that any more than I can. And finally Hawking (Cambridge) and Lenox (Oxford) violently disagree. One vocal mathematician, like one snowflake, doesn't make a comfirmative snowstorm.

6247 views

Lawwrence M. Krauss in the WSJ joins in support of Hawking. Our universe is all nothing:-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703946504575469653720549936.html?KEYWORDS=Lawrence+M+Krauss

6166 views

Stephen Barr chimes in now, a vote against Hawking, in line with Lennox:-
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/much-ado-about-ldquonothingrdquo-stephen-hawking-and-the-self-creating-universe

6225 views

Another anti-Hawking site, with comments on both sides-
http://physicsworld.com/blog/2010/09/talking_hawking_and_god.html

6217 views

Another anti-Hawking site, with comments on both sides
> 
> 
> http://physicsworld.com/blog/2010/09/talking_hawking_and_god.html-Well: Physicsworld is hardly "anti-hawking," but the person who wrote the blog may be.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6236 views

Stephen Barr chimes in now, a vote against Hawking, in line with Lennox:
> 
> 
> http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/much-ado-about-ldquonothingrdquo-stephen... that the opinions of this site are shaded by a very specific and inherited meme. Materialism is correct in at least one thing: we should strive to have blank slates of belief and build our knowledge and opinions only on verifiable fact. Unverified knowledge is not knowledge at all.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6212 views


> > "But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" 
> > 
> > One might argue that the universe IS the creator. The question then would be whether it has awareness of itself and of what it is doing. Is it just a vast mass of matter and energy ... with life and consciousness emerging as the product of an astonishing series of accidents ... or does it have an intelligence of its own?
> 
> You know my answer. The universe is intelligent. But I wonder about the Hawking quote above. If the universe is expanding from a central point, however it started: Bang, quantum fluctuation, etc., then our space-time is expanding like a big balloon into whatever IS NOT out there, i.e., nothing. -I can answer this part: The universe--even in the "Big Bang" model, "expands" literally into nothing. There is no "outside" the universe. The word "expands" is not the best word choice as it carries connotations that lead to incorrect conclusions--I defer to an expert at Cornell:-http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=274->>Space time is flat, according to the latest findings. However if we try to reach an edge we will simply curve back on ourselves within our universe.-There has been some confirmation of a flat model, but a firm consensus does not exist:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rummaging-for-a-final-theory-
>> We can 'see' out to the area of 300,000 years after the Big Bang (if I may use that term advisedly). At that 'place' we pick up the background radiation from the 'Bang'. How do we make that measurement if there is no 'edge"? And finally, from Leibnitz, 'why is there anything?', and Hawking can't answer that any more than I can. And finally Hawking (Cambridge) and Lenox (Oxford) violently disagree. One vocal mathematician, like one snowflake, doesn't make a comfirmative snowstorm.-No... but my real reason for posting the quotes was due to your mild assertion that Hawking too believes in a creator: I think those quotes do a good job of representing a definite shade of doubt.[EDIT] As to your final section, dealing with Leibniz's question, this question is inconsequential; it is not an answerable question and is truly a distraction--it does not matter that there is something rather than nothing. Existence is an axiom, a statement that is true because it hasto be; no more.-
[EDITED]

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6330 views


> I can answer this part: The universe--even in the "Big Bang" model, "expands" literally into nothing. There is no "outside" the universe. The word "expands" is not the best word choice as it carries connotations that lead to incorrect conclusions--I defer to an expert at Cornell:
> 
> http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=274-I agree with the Cornell quotes. Bread and raisins is an old concept, but he agrees. We have no idea what is out 'there' that the Big Bang expanded into. And if we can measure 13.7 billion years, and if Hubble saw the pulling apart, and if space is flat, in my stupid mind, stretching and expansion are very similar if not the same. 
> 
> >>Space time is flat, according to the latest findings. However if we try to reach an edge we will simply curve back on ourselves within our universe.
> 
> There has been some confirmation of a flat model, but a firm consensus does not exist:
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rummaging-for-a-final-theory-I'd read the article when it arrived. Lie concepts may look for a final theory but flatness is not discussed. Lie concepts have to do with symmetry and particles that make up that approach. my memory is that Lie's led to membrane theory?
> 
> No... but my real reason for posting the quotes was due to your mild assertion that Hawking too believes in a creator: I think those quotes do a good job of representing a definite shade of doubt.[EDIT] -I used those quotes by Hawking because of his quotes earlier in life. I think he is a great PR man for himself. Use God and get more public interest. Polkinghorne became an Anglican Priest because of their collaboration, same info different result. Have you read any of P's books?

6145 views


> > I can answer this part: The universe--even in the "Big Bang" model, "expands" literally into nothing. There is no "outside" the universe. The word "expands" is not the best word choice as it carries connotations that lead to incorrect conclusions--I defer to an expert at Cornell:
> > 
> > http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=274
> 
> I agree with the Cornell quotes. Bread and raisins is an old concept, but he agrees. We have no idea what is out 'there' that the Big Bang expanded into. And if we can measure 13.7 billion years, and if Hubble saw the pulling apart, and if space is flat, in my stupid mind, stretching and expansion are very similar if not the same. 
> > 
> > >>Space time is flat, according to the latest findings. However if we try to reach an edge we will simply curve back on ourselves within our universe.
> > 
> > There has been some confirmation of a flat model, but a firm consensus does not exist:
> > 
> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rummaging-for-a-final-theory&... 
> I'd read the article when it arrived. Lie concepts may look for a final theory but flatness is not discussed. Lie concepts have to do with symmetry and particles that make up that approach. my memory is that Lie's led to membrane theory?
> > -We're stretching my memory, but I think Branes are an extension of String Theory and not of Lie groups; though from what I've perused the concept of Lies still permeates String Theory. -> > No... but my real reason for posting the quotes was due to your mild assertion that Hawking too believes in a creator: I think those quotes do a good job of representing a definite shade of doubt.[EDIT] 
> 
> I used those quotes by Hawking because of his quotes earlier in life. I think he is a great PR man for himself. Use God and get more public interest. Polkinghorne became an Anglican Priest because of their collaboration, same info different result. Have you read any of P's books?-I fully agree; he's a great hype man/showman. I'm actually not at all familiar with Polkinghorne. Any suggestions? My wife just picked up a very interesting book that purports to "completely counter" materialism. That will probably be my next spot since my largest "stumbling block" as it were to ID is the fact that my epistemology refuses to deal with non-material claims. I need a good reason to abandon it if I'm ever to take a deity seriously.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6220 views

My wife just picked up a very interesting book that purports to "completely counter" materialism. That will probably be my next spot since my largest "stumbling block" as it were to ID is the fact that my epistemology refuses to deal with non-material claims. I need a good reason to abandon it if I'm ever to take a deity seriously.-Name of the book as I watch and read carefully and have no idea?

6237 views

My wife just picked up a very interesting book that purports to "completely counter" materialism. That will probably be my next spot since my largest "stumbling block" as it were to ID is the fact that my epistemology refuses to deal with non-material claims. I need a good reason to abandon it if I'm ever to take a deity seriously.
> 
> Name of the book as I watch and read carefully and have no idea?-"Does it Matter? The Unsustainable World of the Materialists." By Graham Dunstan Martin. It tackles nearly all the philosophical concepts we deal with. Having read the introduction, I fear I will be disappointed because it seems to simply apply to Dawkins-Atheists and not the perennial doubters like myself. -The big question I have is "How can the scientific method work without an assumption of materialism?"-We'll see...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6326 views


> "Does it Matter? The Unsustainable World of the Materialists." By Graham Dunstan Martin. It tackles nearly all the philosophical concepts we deal with. Having read the introduction, I fear I will be disappointed because it seems to simply apply to Dawkins-Atheists and not the perennial doubters like myself. 
> 
> The big question I have is "How can the scientific method work without an assumption of materialism?"
> 
> We'll see...-Thank you and I agree with your question. However, as I have noted before, results have more than one way of being interpreted.

6268 views

Sorry for the delay to reply, I had a slip of a vacation for a family reunion and just getting settled back in.-> One might argue that the universe IS the creator.-The universe is the product of creation. Creation being the verb as well as the noun. ->The question then would be whether it has awareness of itself and of what it is doing.-In answer to that, I go back to the wisdom of the old sufi saying (as before); Awareness (instead of the word God) sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal and awakens in men. Awareness, just like everything else that IS, is a product of creation. I could just as well say, man sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in humans. All that IS is a product of creation. So what is aware is aware, what is not, is not. But within ALL that IS resides the potential/possibilities of awareness.
. 
>Is it just a vast mass of matter and energy ... with life and consciousness emerging as the product of an astonishing series of accidents ...-I would say there is no such thing as accidents (as we think of accidents). Everything exists within the great soup of possibility within creation, so I wouldn't call anything an "accident" unless I choose to see it as an accident. There are many ways to choose to see any one thing. New possibilities of ways of looking at anything are always available. ->BBella, you are our prophetess. Perhaps you can remind us of your theory of intelligence and its relationship to matter and energy.-If I am a prophetess then we are all prophets and prophetesses; or even better, lets call ourselves Gods, as the scripture said, are ye not all Gods? -Regardless of what we choose to call ourselves (or others), we are all reporters of what we observe by our own methods of choice. My method, no different than many, is an open mind to whatever I observe within and outside me. I keep in mind that either way, nothing I observe is set in stone (not even stone). Everything in creation changes in every moment except for change itself. Change is the one and only constant. The one and only thing I know for a fact is I AM. I am aware and I am conscious. The rest I assume. -I assume I am a product made up from the soup of possibilities of creation, the all that IS. Like a drop from an ocean, I AM a drop of creation, a mirror or reflection of the whole of creation. When I observe all that I am and all that IS, I am aware I have yet to fully understand or comprehend my own relationship to my material as well as conscious self, my whole self. Or, my relationship with what is outside me, and the possibilities that reside in both. I assume therefore the intelligence of creation has yet to fully comprehend its own relationship to the possibilities within its own matter/body and energy/conscious of the ALL that IS.-bb

6228 views

HAWKING: ...The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.-HAWKING: ...it had no beginning, no moment of Creation.-BBELLA (8 September at 07.33:) Who is quoting who? Stephen quoting me or I him? Of course these are all "ifs" but they were my ifs first.-BBELLA (12 September at 08.00): The universe is the product of creation. Creation being the verb as well as the noun.-Now you've really got me confused. Hawking has argued ... as you once did, if my memory is not playing tricks ... for a universe without a beginning, not needing a creator, but just "being", and I gave you the pat on the back you asked for and deserved. What happened during your family reunion to make you suddenly so "creative"? Perhaps I've misunderstood you, because I'm flummoxed by the verb/noun reference. (Creation is only a noun ... the verb is to create, but I don't understand what you were trying to say here.)-BBELLA: When I observe all that I am and all that IS, I am aware I have yet to fully understand or comprehend my own relationship to my material as well as conscious body, my whole self. [...] I assume therefore the intelligence of creation has yet to fully understand its own relationship to the possibilities within its own matter and the energy of the ALL as well.-You have drawn a striking parallel here between the microcosm (us) and the macrocosm (the universe), and if there is such a thing as God or a Universal Intelligence, this is very much the way I would see it too: going through a never-ending process of learning.

6296 views

HAWKING: ...The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.
>
> HAWKING:...it had no beginning, no moment of Creation.
>
> BBELLA (12 September at 08.00): The universe is the product of creation. Creation being the verb as well as the noun.
>
> Now you've really got me confused. Hawking has argued ... as you once did, if my memory is not playing tricks ... for a universe without a beginning, not needing a creator, but just "being", and I gave you the pat on the back you asked for and deserved. What happened during your family reunion to make you suddenly so "creative"? Perhaps I've misunderstood you, because I'm flummoxed by the verb/noun reference. (Creation is only a noun ... the verb is to create, but I don't understand what you were trying to say here.)
 
You wrote "One might argue that the universe IS the creator." At the time I read that sentence, it communicated to me in that moment (whether it was meant to or not) a still snapshot of the universe and said to me, look at this picture, who could argue this is the creator? In my mind, when I looked at the picture, I did not see the creator (altho I may have before, just not in this instance) but the product of creation, regardless of what was intended. Creation, it suddenly seemed to me, fit as the best word to express both the fixed (fixed being the changeless-ness of change) and the process (change). Even tho our language states creation is a noun, I could see the word 'creation' being both noun and verb ( both the product and the process at once - matter and energy at play). 
 
The problem is capturing the duality of 'what IS' with our insufficient eyes (even with a micro/tele scope) and then expressing what we see with our insufficient language. Two inadequate senses to express what IS. But of course, language and eyesight (as well as our other senses) are the best we have to work with. Maybe it is just simpler, for language sake, to throw in the towel and call all that IS - God.

6274 views

I wrote: "One might argue that the universe IS the creator."-BBELLA: At the time I read that sentence, it communicated to me in that moment [...] a still snapshot of the universe and said to me, look at this picture, who could argue this is the creator?-Thank you for explaining the statements I had previously found difficult to follow. If I've understood the rest of your post, the implication is that the universe is a continuous process of creation, which makes it at one and the same time both a creative force and the product of its own creation. You link this to Hawking's hypothesis, according to which the universe may have had no beginning but simply IS, and I think it also has a great deal in common with process theology, though Hawking says it would make God unnecessary (come back, Frank, and tell him where to go). -BBELLA: "Maybe it is just simpler, for language sake, to throw in the towel and call all that IS ... God." -If by throwing in the towel we could also throw out all the trappings with which the different religions envelop their gods, we could probably come to some sort of consensus. But the word has far too many associations. You're right, though, we do need a term for all that IS. Perhaps we should simply call it Nature. (Not an original idea, I know, but is there anything original to be said on this subject?) Whether Nature is a conscious or unconscious force would be left open to discussion, but at least we'd have a term that all of us could use as a common, neutral starting point.

6232 views

http://ldolphin.org/constc.shtml-The Speed of Light (c) is not constant. If C is not constant, all cosmological accuracy, radioactive dating, etc goes right out the window, unless they can calculate every variation of C for the last umpteen billion years. That kind of buggers up all their results doesn't it :P

6348 views

http://ldolphin.org/constc.shtml
> 
> The Speed of Light (c) is not constant. If C is not constant, all cosmological accuracy, radioactive dating, etc goes right out the window, unless they can calculate every variation of C for the last umpteen billion years. That kind of buggers up all their results doesn't it :P-The speed of light is still constant. Most of the references in the website are quite old by scientific speed of discovery. But one fellow, Joao Magueijo, is referenced as of 2002. Site upgraded in 2003 and Magueijo's book from 2002 is not mentioned: "Faster than the speed of Light: the story of a scientific speculation", in which he admits that playing with the speed, a lot faster at first by 70 orders of magnitude solves some math considerations/issues in the cosmologic standard model, but remains totally unproven. My belief is that website is trying to prove a point that is not proven, only speculated at present.

6259 views

What it boils down to is, either the currently accepted c is wrong, by virtue of not being constant, or the data samples are inaccurate due to a lack of sensitivity or bias. Because the data sets do show variations in the speed of light. So, either they are wrong, or they are wrong. If they have calculated the wrong value of c, then there are many other things dependent on c that are wrong. If c actually IS variable, then there are many other things dependent on c that are incorrect. If they want to claim that c is accurate despite the data, then they need a way to explain the variations and abnormalities seen in c.

6241 views

What it boils down to is, either the currently accepted c is wrong, by virtue of not being constant, or the data samples are inaccurate due to a lack of sensitivity or bias. Because the data sets do show variations in the speed of light. So, either they are wrong, or they are wrong. If they have calculated the wrong value of c, then there are many other things dependent on c that are wrong. If c actually IS variable, then there are many other things dependent on c that are incorrect. If they want to claim that c is accurate despite the data, then they need a way to explain the variations and abnormalities seen in c.-Can you quote any recent references to variability? As far as I have read variability is still in the area of supposition.

6217 views

Hawking poem emailed to me:-"Singing Hymns to Gravity"
 
Stephen Hawking has been talking,
Hawking Faith in what's unseen;
Rub the lamp and there you have it!
We can see just what he means!
Yep, no Deity is needed,
Nope, now God need not apply.
Church of Po-Mo Speculation:
"Just So" stories in the sky.
Humanism's same ol' same ol',
Trace it back to Babel's Tow'r....
Scientism's Holy Temple,
Deconstruction's finest hour.
Naturalism in full flower,
Still avoiding Deity...
Mankind hiding in the Garden,
Singing hymns to Gravity!
Watch!..... Spontaneous Creation!
All from Nothing like we thought...
"POOF!"...... String Theory's "mutiverses"
All strung out in Godless Noughts.
Mental prestidigitation,
Such Enchantment! Come and see!
One more nabal-istic missile
Launched through human history.
Scientism's ekklesia
Heed the rebel spirit's Call!
Magik Gravity in action...
Just relax....Enjoy The Fall!

6327 views

Whoever wrote this Hymn to Gravity
Has truly nailed the M String Fairy.
To seal this cosmic-scale depravity
Let Hawking wed the Virgin Mary.

6213 views

The best single philosophic comment I've seen on Hawking's ploy to make money. From the WSJ:-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989304575503952480317596.html?KEYWORDS=Roger+Scrutonhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989304575503952480317596.html?KEYWORDS=Roger+Scruton-Modern philosophy may have tried to kill Aristotle, but perhaps he is not gone.

6246 views

Agreed. Very well stated.

6228 views

To save writing this all out twice I give a link to my article in Hastings Humanists:
> 
> http://hastingshumanists.blogspot.com/2010/09/hawking-ditches-god.html&#10... -
If you would like to listen to Roger Penrose and Alister McGrath argue against Hawking, this is an excellent discussion:-http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={320D8898-A8F0-4433-8934-D64DDEB8A21C}

6266 views

Another take on Hawkings, with a discussion on Natural Law and how much they relate to reality, and also how far one can predict with the math developed from them.-http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/

6282 views

A right on the money philosophic comment on how Hawking is no philosopher:-Hawkings runs off the rails when he forgets the first principles of science laid down by Francis Bacon in 1605 when he noted that science takes account of only material and efficient causes. It does not take account of final or formal causes. -Well, at least he is not Aristotle. :-) )

6316 views

Penrose also tries to ditch God. Here is an analysis on his latest attempt:-
http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/11/22/sir_rogers_revelation.thtml-Note that this commentary confirms inflation.

6238 views

A marvelous takeoff on Hawkings musings. The materialist 'version' of creation:-
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/12/when-nothing-created-everything

6193 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum