Thanks for the responses, in depth as always. A few points if I may. I posted;
You seem to ask questions of Hawkings but direct them to those here familiar with his theories.
Well, yeah, that's what I tried. Since I am not scientifically "learned"... I obviously failed. Miserably. At least, as far as some of the responders apparently believe. I have to say, though, that I don't get why that was such a "bad" thing ("Javold! Ooh are YOU to quvestion das scientists een such a vay!?")... when it happens just as often the other way (i.e., folks asking ME questions about my faith all the time!). But... ah, well.
Perhaps you would get a more responses posting your more detailed questions on a science based discussion board. It is no wonder that you get faith based questions on this board.
You posted on the 1st page;
I would offer to Dr. Hawkings that, if that star literally existed in an OPPOSITE universe, then what we know as the physical universe absolutely COULD be the result of its implosion... however, unlike stars that implode in THIS world, the physical universe... and thus cave in on themselves... perhaps another phenomena occurred... one where a "star"... in another "world"... one that is the OPPOSITE of this one (the positive to our negative, or negative to our positive... and I can't call it is "universe" as it may not be limited to one)... did EXACTLY the OPPOSITE... and so EXPANDED... and SPREAD its "energy", thus forming the physical world... by forming mass/matter. In either case, it wouldn't have been an implosion in this world, but an explosion (and an implosion in an opposite world).
And I would offer that that "star"... is JAHESHUA, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit... whose "birth" caused that "explosion" (verses implosion). And that the impetus for that event were the "words": Let the Light... come forth! And when he did, when that Light... that ENERGY Source... came forth... so did the physical universe.
You draw an analogy of part of his theory to the name you call god (don't know if you're gonna ask him that one)
NO, dear Twitch. NO. That is NOT true at ALL. You post that, however, because you THINK you know what I believe... as well as what I'm asking. But that VERY statement shows me that you do NOT... nor do you even WANT to. Rather, you are going with the status quo... what you think we "all" think... which is NOT what we "all" think, at all. Which is to ME exactly what YOU accuse religion of doing: NOT listening... jumping to all kinds of erroneous premises... NOT researching what someone believes/is talking about... and so making all kinds of wrong conclusions.
Well, first of all, to me it seems fairly obvious that you are in fact referencing his theory and extrapolating on it with some of what you believe. Did you not suggest that Jah is the light that brought the universe into being? It's right there in your own words, taking a theory he proposes and drawing a spiritual analogy for creation. You did say you would "offer" the idea to the good Dr, or at least, to us here.
However, you say it's not true and go on to accuse me of not thinking or listening and how it's indicative of ignorance on my part, essentially. Interesting. I don't presume to know all that you believe; that is not what I said. I did not agree or disagree with your premise; I only commented that this is what you theorized. You did ask that I read your post in detail; here was a brief synopsis of my take, as you asked. It was objective and concise to what you presented IMO. That in itself, might be the problem.
You discussed this little topic, summarized as scientists are the biggest problems.
Again, no. My statement as to scientists being the biggest problem was SOLELY confined to the days of Aristarchus, Copernicus, and Galileo. Which I stated. That was IT. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with Dr. Hawkings, the program, or today... other than to say that, LIKE RELIGION... scientists can ALSO sometimes be one another's worse enemies... that SCIENTISTS have ALSO stood in the way of science.
Fair enough, you did say that. As well, you also said this;
In the post-show, then, I found it quite amusing that many PHYSCISTS... actually don't agree on the origin... or cause of the origin... of the universe. Apparently, there are several theories out there. Like... religion. And, again, the "sell" for ALL of these theories... was like listening to a badly masked "sermon."
I mentioned that this show... and many other shows... and articles... do this. And they DO. I also said I didn't know who was behind it (producer, network/station, scientist, etc.). And that I can't see how that is any different from how religion "sells" ITS positions. And I can't.
Your statement is essentially that scientists can be at odds, which I do not dispute, however was your point solely about the ancients or do you have the same opinion of scientists today? In both cases you say science is like religion. Again, there in printed text. One could say there is a theme there and one not solely attibutable to a tv show or this thread alone.
Theories which are unproven have a tough go of it, as shown by your point about Aristarchus and even so today. Without the numbers, without unbiased verification, without general consensus and without exceptions, a theory is just that. All bets are off until it's proven. Once it is however, it gives something that religion hasn't and can't give, a universal truth about the laws of our universe.
But because some of you went immediately on the DEFENSE... one even coming out ridiculing right from the start... you didn't accurately READ what I posted. Which is ALSO a bit reminiscent of the religious, to me.
Well, strong convictions can seem religious, more so the less one has undeniable proof for. But your viewpoints do seem to have a common thread of I-speak-with-the-Lord mysticism; what response do you expect really?
Again, I didn't see the program but then again, I have no doubt of the angle the producers went with.
Then HOW are you able to take issue with what I presented in the FIRST place? Isn't that replying to a matter before having all of the FACTS? Can you truly come in on the middle of a discussion, take the last thing stated, and conclude as to what was said at the outset? Not ONE person who responded who DID see the show... disputed my perception. Not one. Not all implicitly endorsed it, either, but NO ONE said, "Oh, no, Shelb... it wasn't like that at all. And I've NEVER seen one that was."
In the first place, I took issue with a minor error in fact about Gallileo and that it was inferred that scientific rivalry impeded progress when in fact religious repression played a major role in that case IMO. I don't doubt that politics didn't factor in but you made no mention of the Inquistion either, which in my opinion is a rather important fact to leave out and at the very best, downplay.
In fact, I made it clear that I did not have all the facts, in regards to the show. However, I also point out that your comments clearly equate science with religion, which I am fairly certain, was not in the show.
But if you didn't see the show, dear Twitch... which is what this thread was about... how is YOUR opinion of any true weight?
inasmuch as it was a response to your request for thoughts on your theories, it has as much weight as any other. I did not address the show, only the ideas presented arising from it. Seems valid enough.
Yes. That wasn't my issue. My issue is selling a theory as fact... and pretty much promising to produce those facts... when in FACT your argument DOESN'T show your theory to be FACT. Now, maybe that wasn't Dr. Hawking's intention. Maybe that's not his usual M.O. I dunno. But that IS what occurred in the show... which prompted my questions. NONE of which are that hard to address, IMHO. And yet...
Most everything in the media has an angle. Indeed everything we do is based on angles, to a degree. The idea that scientific process and laws rise above this and seeks our certainties which it has provided, is ultimately a process and not a destination. How it gets there is trial and error of course. I'm sorry if you can't see past this.
Twitch, dear, dear Twitch, let me be honest with you: what has occurred here, as a result of my ASKING such questions... and stating WHY I had such questions... the "reception" for me putting MY truth out there ("Hey, I saw this show, it was very much like listening to a sermon, here's why... AND it not only didn't answer the questions it said it would, but raised some more)... it SO close to what I received from the WTBTS for similar... that I TRULY cannot see the difference. Truly.
Nothing wrong with asking questions. I'm sorry this particular program and your responses here left you wanting. I'm glad to see you admit to putting your own truth out there, as do I and everyone else.
I'm sorry you see people's opinions here as you do. That is likely the subject of different topic. I chose to address ideas you've presented and hopefully presented a worthwhile position.
Again, peace to you... and I think I'm going to just "let" you all run me off now because there's really no point in continuing. Unless, of course, someone DOES want to take on those questions...
No worries and back atcha. I enjoy the mental exercise from time to time, if only for it's own sake.
Oh and if you really want feedback, pretend that it's the absolute truth. You'll get far better publicity and responses. Ask any scientist, or troll...lol