Curiosity/ Create the universe Stephen Hawking

by jam 153 Replies latest jw friends

  • AGuest
    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.

    Perhaps, dear Twitch (again, peace to you!). But I wonder: did anyone notice that I didn't START the thread... but only commented, per MY perspective... due to the TOPIC of the thread - a show, which I just happened to catch? Since the TOPIC was brought up ON this board, well... stands to follow that comments/responses should be associated. Well, that's what MY "critical thinking" tells ME.

    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)

    I did. Both. Draw the analogy. Because of what I've seen. Which I posted on the board a bit ago. Which is why the show... and thread... were of interest to me. The show did not negate what I saw, but actually lended more credence to it. But so what? Where is the "crime" in that, given that this IS a board where beliefs... as well as non-beliefs... are discussed??

    Fair enough, you did say that.

    THANK you, truly, for bothering to go back and READ what I posted... so as to understand where I am coming from AND my intent! THANK you!

    Your statement is essentially that scientists can be at odds, which I do not dispute,

    Which was my only point...

    however was your point solely about the ancients or do you have the same opinion of scientists today?

    Unfortunately, I have the same today. I review of the positions on such things as string/knot theory, a universe vs. multiverses, and others, show this. That there ARE differences, however, doesn't bother me, not at all. I get that...

    In both cases you say science is like religion. Again, there in printed text.

    In how they "SELL" their theories/beliefs, yes, I do say that. And I stand by that statement....

    One could say there is a theme there and one not solely attibutable to a tv show or this thread alone.

    No theme. Just a personal observation... based on FACTS.

    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.

    For some, yes. BUT... if it's proven TRUE... wasn't it true ALL ALONG? I refer to my flat earth reference...

    Once it is however, it gives something that religion hasn't and can't give, a universal truth about the laws of our universe.

    See, I am not so sure I can agree with that. For example, according to the Bible, the earth was always round. Okay, so it wasn't PROVEN until thousands of years later. Was it TRULY flat during such "dark" years?

    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?

    I expect people who run around trying to convince others that they are more critical thinkers, even higher thinkers... to give ME the benefit of the doubt, look PAST their perceptions of ME... and look at what I'm asking. Again, I could be a zip, dang, idiot; doesn't mean my questions aren't valid. And one doesn't know, does one... if one doesn't even bother to CONSIDER the questions...

    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.

    I didn't include the Inquisition because, from what I read, it wasn't like the Inquisition was after Galileo; rather, it appears that his enemies simply USED the Inquisition... to exact revenge on him. So that, from what I understand, the Inquisition was the end... but the means TO the end. The end... was shutting him up... NOT because what he believed WAS so controversial... but because it disagreed with the beliefs of a specific person... and cuttingly so. What ultimately occurred with Galileo was the result of someone's bruised ego; not religious suppression. Religious suppression was simply the effect... caused by the tool (the Inquisition)... brought to bear by the insecurities and embarrassment of a mere man.

    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.

    No, my comments equate the SELL of science... with the SELL of religion. And, again, I can't see much difference.

    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.

    I can't say I agree... because your CONCLUSIONS regarding the ideas presented arising from it were inaccurate. Had you saw the show, you would most probably have said, "Okay, I see where she's coming from. That's not really what it's all about but, yeah, this show... and, admittedly, others... can make it seem so." But, well, that's ME, how I would have approached it.

    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.

    Well, my "blinders", if you will... is all of the so-called "integrity" that we're supposed to believe exists in relation to science. I'm only holding science to the standard IT says it follows. It never said they have to empirically prove everything. If they tell me clouds are evaporated water... I'm good with that; I don't need to watch an experiment myself to believe it.

    Nothing wrong with asking questions.

    Apparently, some here disagree with you...

    I'm sorry this particular program and your responses here left you wanting.

    The program and others' responses, yes. But thank you for the sentiment, truly!

    I'm glad to see you admit to putting your own truth out there, as do I and everyone else.

    I do the best I can, dear one. I tried to be a truthful as I could. I do know that all cannot handle that, so I had not plans to take offense. I just didn't/don't understand the personal insults and insinuations. Truly, I don't. IMHO, they're really nothing more than ad hominems and red herrings. Which I find interest, too, given all the hype about "critical thinking" thrown around here these days.

    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.

    As insults? Ad hominems? Red herrings? But they were! But no, no different topic. I feel the same way about some of them as they do me: can't talk to 'em. Ah, well... But I thank YOU for trying to make another attempt. It is truly appreciated.

    No worries and back atcha. I enjoy the mental exercise from time to time, if only for it's own sake.

    I do, as well. It's like solving the New York Times crossword for me, sometimes. Keeps me on my toes... and able to think "critically" - LOLOLOL! (Though, again, I can't where a whole lot of "critical thinking" went on with some others... in light of the comments from those who didn't even see the show... let alone accurately read my comments.)

    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

    Ah, yes... play the OTHER kind of "reindeer games". Of course. I'll keep that in mind!

    Again, peace to you, dear Twitch... and thanks for the second "go"!

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA, who doesn't really believe in Rudolph, though...

  • AGuest

    My apologies to dear jam (the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!)... for posting comments on your thread that resulted in the above. Did not intend it and really didn't see it coming (truly). Saw the show... thought I had some valid questions... was going to start my own thread and saw yours... and, well... oops! Sorry, dear one... truly.

    Again, peace to you!

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,


  • HBJ

    No question about Hawking's intelligence, but I wanted post some views from Albert Einstein. I'm not claiming that Einstein was the say all or know all. As pointed out, some of his formulations have been "dead wrong". But I think his views below that I listened to have some relevance regarding the issue at hand, IMHO. The ultimate question, did God create the universe?

    When asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, Einstein replied:

    "Unquestionably!" No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

    MC: "Albert Einstein believed in God. He said of the Creators existence"

    "I am not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws".

    He continued: "What separates me from most so-called atheist is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos."

    MC: "Einstein seemed to be more critical of debunkers who seem to lack humility or a sense of awe than of the faithful. He wrote in a letter"

    "The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who, in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium' of the masses, cannot hear the music of the spheres."

    MC: "In other words, because their hatred of traditional religion, they cannot see the genius of God's handiwork. It's interesting to notice that at the age of 34, a young Albert Einstein proudly boasted of something that seemed right to him. He said"

    "I have firmly resolved to bite the dust, when my time comes, with the minimum of medical assistance, and up to then I will sin to my wicket heart's content."

    MC: "As Einstein aged, he became far more philosophical and said"

    "To one bent on age, death will come as a release. I feel this quite strongly now that I have grown old myself, and have come to regard death like an old debt, at long last discharged. Still, instinctively, one does everything possible to postpone the final settlement. Such is the game that nature plays with us."

    A final quote from MC: "It seems that Albert Einstein spoke Biblical truths, unawares. However, it isn't nature that seeks a final settlement, it's the law of God. Like a criminal who's transgressed civil law, Einstein, like the rest of humanity was in debt to eternal justice because he had transgressed God's law. This great debt that he spoke of couldn't be satisfied with mere silver or gold. It's a debt that requires capital punishment that calls for the death penalty for guilty transgressors - an eternal damnation and hell. This terrible decree demands that a soul that sins - it shall die. A demand that was fully satisfied by the one who cried from Calvary's cross, ‘it is finished'. It was paid in full by the precious blood of Jesus."

    Personally, I don't want to get involved in an anger fest, as it looks like a few have done regarding this topic. I thought that some might be interested in views or theories from others that have spoken about this topic to some degree. Is it safe to say that this subject typically ends with the age-old battle of Science vs. Religion, and can the two coexist without taking away from the other?

  • Twitch
    Is it safe to say that this subject typically ends with the age-old battle of Science vs. Religion, and can the two coexist without taking away from the other?

    Typically. The 2nd question remains to be seen,..

  • bohm

    The passive-agressiveness and snide remarks are truly being stacked to such heights i wonder if i will know a tertiary language by the evening...

  • AGuest
    can the two coexist without taking away from the other?

    Although I am not religious, dear HBJ (peace to you!), and so can't speak from a religious point of view, I have come to know that science and spirit CAN co-exist... and, in fact, are interdependent on one another to a greater or lesser degree. We live in physical world... which we definitely need to know and understand WHILE we exist in it. But we are more than "just" physical beings. Heck, even the beasts are more than just physical beings.

    "The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who, in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium' of the masses, cannot hear the music of the spheres."

    I love Einstein...

    Thank you for your comments and, again, peace to you!

    A slave of Christ,


  • jam

    AGuest: Please no need to apologies. It,a been

    very informative reading all the comments.

    Stand your ground, Mrs.Lady.

  • AGuest

    dear jam... and, again, peace to you!

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,


  • JonathanH


    Eintsein was a spinozan deist that found religion childish. He didn't believe in prayer, the soul, a personal god, or anything that religious people think of when they think of "God". To Einstein the universe itself was god, and it had neither intelligence nor intent, nature had no purpose. The fact that einstein spoke poetically about the universe has given the religious a means of claiming that Einstein, one of the most important physicists of the modern age, actually believed similarly to them when nothing could be further from the truth.

  • bohm

    someone need to read his conservapedia more often!

Share this