Curiosity/ Create the universe Stephen Hawking

by jam 153 Replies latest jw friends

  • Qcmbr

    I love that science doesn't moralise or generate a set of commandments, doesn't discriminate, doesn't legislate, doesn't judge or condemn, does contain a self criticising mechanism, never shortcuts to magic, doesn't anthropomorphise non human things and above all provides real results. No god has ever been recorded as saving more people than modern medicine, feeding more than cross bred pest resistant rice and wheat strains or explaining how natural processes actually work.

    Busts my chaps when uninformed religious thinkers dare to criticise the world of reason merely as a sly way to preach their brand of snake oil.

    Bohm - I feel your pain. Talking to AGuest is almost impossible , she's using words just not in a way that makes sense.

    AGuest get a good psychiatrist - seriously I say this not to insult (though I understand it is painful to hear) but because it's not a good mental health sign to have voices in your head. My friend used to hear voices from 'spirits' all the time and he is not well, he is improving though with treatment.

    The presentation of these popular science programs can come across as a sales pitch, this is an entertainment media ( it's unlikely that such a program would be used as a core education component ) and distills mind blowing mathematical models, vast amounts of astronomical data and very obtuse theoretical physics into a form that can be grasped by the casual channel flicker.

    What Hawkins and his media scientist types have done is made science cool and awe inspiring. Religion has held the ground on awe for as long as it could convince people that the physical world was merely a temporary manifestation of an invisible magic one, a special world that lent the physical world rainbows as covenants and lightning as divine fire.

  • tec

    See now, this:

    The presentation of these popular science programs can come across as a sales pitch, this is an entertainment media

    ...would have been all that was needed in answer to Shelby's comment on the similar to religion 'pitch'. Then answer or discuss her questions, which were valid. I haven't watched the show, so I have held off commenting, but really... she DID ask questions pertaining to it and that is all. She commented on the 'pitch' the same as many others, and yet instead of answers to her questions on the science, or the above quote as to the 'pitch' (finally), it was just all 'yo momma'... to steal from Scully for a moment ;)

    Just saying. This thread really does seem like some just want to deflect, because they can't answer. Might not be the case. But that is what it looks like on this thread.



  • PSacramento

    People like to pick on Shel because she is an easy target.

  • Qcmbr

    Shelby is facilitated by many!

    I'm sure she's lovely in many ways but I'd still kick her out of my house if she talked face to face like she writes. All this 'slave and servant' weirdness is very very passive aggressive. Maybe I'm the only one noticing or has a low enough tact threshold to comment!

    AGuest raised a valid point re the programs presentation style but then tried to use it as a preaching point against science and pro her invisible magic worldview.

  • Twitch


    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.

    Your response

    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.

    My response/observation:

    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.

    I said:

    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

  • Qcmbr

    Just one point for Tammy. I agree that her questions never really got answered.

    Not certain she wanted them answering though since google has plenty of links for easily consumed astro physics 101.

    I wouldn't consult an ex-JW forum for extreme physics reasoning ( though credit there are some brilliant, educated people here - you know who you are) and then suggest in the absence of chapter and verse that my untestable hypothesis was therefore equally valid.

    Long live the debate.

  • AGuest

    You may be right, dear P... and thank YOU for your comments, dear Tam (the greatest of love and peace to you, both!). Maybe if I put the following question out there, some of the responders will be able to grasp where I would "go"... in a discussion with Dr. Hawking (not that THAT would/could ever happen - some of us are just too lowly for the great minds of this world. Hmmmm... now, where and from whom else I have gotten that impression? ).

    String theorists believe in black holes. Black holes theoreticaly implode on themselves... creating space (where the laws as to space, time, gravity, etc., of THIS verse don't apply. At least, not how they do in THIS verse, but opposite). String theorists believe in other "dimensions/multiverses." Dr. Hawking believes THIS universe is the result of a "big bang"... which "bang" was a star... imploding on itself. A "black hole."

    IS IT POSSIBLE... that a "star"... in ANOTHER verse... did just that... imploded on itself ("died")... with the result being the creation of THIS verse... and LIFE in this verse... within in the "black hole" resulting from that implosion?

    I won't go farther than that, just now, but it seems like an easy enough question. I really didn't know I would have to break it down for those from who I anticipated a response. But it is what it is. So, let's start over... and from there, if that'll work?

    Although, I have to say that I agree with dear VM's conclusion (peace to you, as well!). However, the model didn't deal with the energy expended by the man (which, according to some folks' math, would have resulted in double the amount of expended (negative energy) because you still have the hole)... or even the "man" who DUG the hole in the first place. Call me stupid if you want, but a "model" that uses a man to dig a hole... and then tells us there was no man - the hole came about on its own - doesn't sound like "sound" science... to ME. But what do I know?

    And, in closing, I would like to reiterate that, yes, it DID come across as a sales pitch... which was my issue: how can you take issue with others who "sell" their beliefs through propoganda and BS... if you do the SAME thing? That this statement was even made shows it happens. As someone who's BS detector has been ratcheted up to WAY high... I don't want to be bothered with it.

    You got a theory? Share it. You've proven it? Good. But if you have to "SELL" it... and your sales pitch is full of holes... sorry, I'm not buying. Doesn't mean your underlying theory is wrong; just means you haven't proven it to me but rather have caused me even MORE skepticism. For me, this applies to science AND religion. Both have theories AND facts... that are proven and I have no need or desire to debate. Both also have holes (one larger than the other, perhaps)... but holes are still holes. BOTH... have supporters... AND dissenters... of their various positions, theories, and unproven "facts".

    And while I have to say that I do respect one (science) more than I do the other (religion)... that wasn't my issue: my issue was the sales pitching for a theory that, again, seems to have holes.

    Peace to you all!

    A slave of Christ,


  • AGuest
    AGuest raised a valid point re the programs presentation style but then tried to use it as a preaching point against science and pro her invisible magic worldview.

    Actually, I didn't, dear Qcmbr (peace to you!). I mean, it may look like that, but that truly was not my intention. I just didn't want to leave without also including my understanding. I do find it interesting that, rather than focus on the questions, the science-minded tended to focus ONLY on the acknowledgement I gave my Lord. But it has always been my "way" to do that. I personally would have hoped... maybe even expected... such "critical thinkers" to be able to look past that, if they had NO interest in it... and just focus on the parts pertinent to what they purport to know. I have no choice but to conclude, however, that they only focused on what they DID... because the rest was too much. Note, I don't say that out of arrogant or conceit; I say it because I know it can be done. I read threads on this board all the time... where I have to filter out what I don't believe is relevant so as to focus on what I believe is. I learned to do that when I learned to think... critically.

    I agree that her questions never really got answered.

    I don't think anyone can DENY that, dear one. Do you?

    Not certain she wanted them answering though since google has plenty of links for easily consumed astro physics 101.

    I don't ask questions I don't want answers to, dear one... at least, not without including some kind of disclaimer to that effect. I forthrightly put out there that they were questions I WOULD ask Dr. Hawking... but that since that was highly unlikely to occur, I would ask those, here. Now, if no one WANTED to answer... or even COULDN'T... fine. Post that. Or post nothing. But why the personal attacks, including from you? I could be crazy as a LOON... but my QUESTIONS... were valid. Why not attack them... rather than me and my "sanity"? I personally can't see the results of "critical thinking" in that.

    I wouldn't consult an ex-JW forum for extreme physics reasoning ( though credit there are some brilliant, educated people here - you know who you are) and then suggest in the absence of chapter and verse that my untestable hypothesis was therefore equally valid.

    Well, see, that's where you and I differ. If you HAD so consulted... and I actually DID know... I would have simply responded to your questions, not take you to task for deigning to ask them. I would NOT have jumped to [very wrong] conclusions that you were trying to "bait" anyone (which is obviously the conclusion some have jumped to), but given YOU the benefit of the doubt that, although we don't believe the same, you WERE asking in sincerity. Unless YOU obviously showed/stated otherwise. I would have done so because I would have concluded that you felt more COMFORTABLE asking your questions here... than, say, at Cornell. Because you thought that perhaps someone here would know... or at least show you where your questions were lacking. REGARDLESS of what you personally BELIEVE.

    And I can say this with all confidence... because it happens just the opposite here all the time. Atheists ask VERY pointed questions and make all KINDS of statements regarding "belief." I don't attack them for their lack of belief; I simply try to respond... honestly and truthfully... to the questions they raise. While ignoring the ridicule, sarcasm, snideness, etc.

    I am now even more of the opinion that while many hear may have changed their faith/belief/religion when leaving/ceasing any association with the WTBTS... nothing much else about them really changed. They were just as nerky when they WERE religious... whether as JWs... or whatever other denomination... as they are now. Now, they just "know" MORE (or so they think).

    Again, peace to you!

    A slave of Christ,

    SA, off to see what dear Twitch had to say...

  • Inkie

    Caedes: You wrote:

    “One of the questions was regarding protons popping in and out of existence, it sounds like the info in the show was correct, the static or 'real' protons do not blink in and out of existence. Thus the 'static' protons would remain static and real. According to quantum mechanics only virtual particle pairs pop in and out of existence, they cannot come 'from' somewhere or 'go' somewhere in this universe since that would break the laws of conservation of energy. It is not a question of not having the right instruments, it is a problem of the fundamental physical laws of the universe.

    At least that is how I understand it and my understanding of physics is far from perfect.”

    I was made to wonder, why is it that ‘static’ protons that remain static are considered real? Does not the evidence show that protons which “blink in and out of existence,” so to speak, are ALSOreal—just not static? I mean, the fact that some protons can be detected and/or seen to “blink in and out,” as shown in this program, give evidence that they are real? Now, one may wonder where “they go” when they ‘blink out’; however, even in their ‘blinking out,’ aren’t they real? Just because something isn’t “seen” doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist or ceases to exist because we suddenly can’t see it, does it? Is that what the scientists and you are concluding?

    Like you, I too am far far from perfect in my understanding of physics. The above are just questions that “blink in and out of existence” in my brain.


  • Mad Sweeney
    Mad Sweeney

    People like to pick on Shel because she is an easy target.

    Why do you call her an "easy target" PSac? How is she an easier target than anyone else on a message board? Why aren't you or I 'picked on' in the same manner?

Share this