Curiosity/ Create the universe Stephen Hawking

by jam 153 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AGuest

  I must applaud you how you are really nailing both me and science on this thread...

  Wha..? What are you on about, dear Bohm (peace!). Not trying to "nail" anyone or anything. The show purported to nail God causing the Big Bang to the way. It didn't... and apparently I'm not the only one who thought it didn't.

  I take it you did not apply the scientific method to your own visions?

  Nope, sorry... wasn't required. I don't claim to be a scientist or physicist. I'm just a lowly citizen, not even a scholar... asking some questions. And I am more than willing to entertain any potential responses, including any from you. So long as they are responses... to the thread, post, my questions... and not your puerile attempts to create red herrings so that we all follow after you and your childish insecurities... rather than sticking to the actual topic.

  thats the thing, did i really diagnose you?

  No. You merely attempted to. Which makes you a little hypocritical, doesn't it, given your reaction when the same is done to you? I mean, since I am not a medical professional, mine were only attempts, as well. Right?

  Perhaps this is my lack of education or depth talking, but which coordinate frames are we talking about? (observer, observed).

  You would have to take that up with Dr. Hawkings. Per the show, none were given... or required. Given your comment, though, sounds to ME like you would have a question or two for Dr. Hawkings, yourself. So, take care... 'cause a little more of your dirty (i.e., hypocritical) chonies are showing. Might be time to change 'em...

  But thanks for TRYING to get back on topic... and, again, peace to you.

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  wobble

  Surely if Shelby's Lord is who she says He is, He could answer our questions on Black Holes, what existed before our Universe etc. etc ???

  Just wait awhile for the "You must not put God to the test" type answer.
• 

  AGuest

  You have one standard for the results in science, and one for your own visions.

  No, I don't have a standard for either, dear one. I watched a show that raised some questions in me (which dear MS says it's supposed to do - the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!). Now, if you have answers to MY questions... bring 'em on. I don't care what your standard is... nor have I set one for which you must respond. Simply speak up.

  And that allow you to naively accepting your own visions as coming from outside your head when all evidence is to the contrary,

  What evidence would that be, dear one? You've run no tests on me...

  while simultaneous comparing renowed scientists to an evil cult based on what you see in a tv-show.

  Okay, you obviously didn't read my comments. Please... go back and do so. And perhaps do so more SLOWLY, this time. My issue was with the PRESENTATION... which DID mimick the same tactics used by a certain evil cult. Now, was that on the scientists themselves? On the show's producers? The station? Hawkings' publisher? Hawkings? Heck, I don't know. It simply was what it was. And that you take issue with that... in light of the OTHER comments made here... without having even seen the show YOURSELF... says... what? I think it starts with the letter "h".

  And you might be a really nice lady, but it sucks that you need to do this passive-aggressive spiell where you tell me to have peace and at the same time make personal remarks.

  Oh, yes, I see: I'm supposed to withhold my wish for peace because YOU were rude. AND... I'm supposed to not turn YOUR finger back on YOU... BECAUSE I also wished you peace. No, sorry, dear one: it doesn't work that way. I can wish you peace... and still kindly and gently put you in your place... when you step out of it. Which you did. Unfortunately, the problem is that you tried to put me in what you feel is MINE... and failed. Oooh, I'm really sorry about that.

  Again, peace to you. Truly. Sincerely. I mean it.

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  AGuest

  He could, dear Wobble (the greatest of love and peace to you!)... and for me, has. Which I shared here on the board a bit ago. But that wasn't the scope of this thread... or my comments. The TV show was. So...

  Again, peace to you, dear one!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  bohm

  Aguest: " So, take care... 'cause a little more of your dirty (i.e., hypocritical) chonies are showing"

  Right. Im a hypocrit because of what? Because i point out you blanket statement on general relativity (a subject which i am very confident you understand even less of than me and nothing compared to Dr. Hawkins) need clarification?

  Tell me if this is "hypocrit":

  • First excusing that you did not apply the scientific method to your own visions by "not being a scholar" and "it wasnt required"
  • AT THE SAME TIME comparing the results in science at large to a religious cult; suddenly when it suit you you are pretty well-versed in the scientific method and science to the point of being able to make such gross comparisons based on "listening careful" to a tv-show on a subject you do not understand nor have made significant attempts to understand!

  because THAT looks like the stuff to me!
• 

  NomadSoul

  I DID, dear NS (peace to you!)... and watched with that in mind. However, that's not how it was PRESENTED, at all. I mean, it was the typical WTBTS "bait and swtich" ("Oh, no, you don't HAVE to believe what we believe; we're open to ALL... and we LOVE all. But if you haven't converted and become one of us by [the end of the show]... well, it's because you're really just not intelligent enough... like us").

  So when has the Watchtower or any other religious organization started off a subject with "This is my opinion"?
• 

  bohm

  " And perhaps do so more SLOWLY, this time. My issue was with the PRESENTATION... which DID mimick the same tactics used by a certain evil cult. "

  ah the presentation. the thing is when i read really slowly (even in all-caps!) i get this:

  "LOLOLOL! Okaayyy? But many don't see how the scientific world is very similar to the WTBTS in this, with its claims of "new light." Both have a VERY similar way of saying that truth is ONLY what we [think we] know... right now. Even if it changes/is subject to change. "

  the thing is, no matter how slow i read that it seem like someone is comparing the scientific world at large to the WTBTS.

  And that allow you to naively accepting your own visions as coming from outside your head when all evidence is to the contrary,

  What evidence would that be, dear one? You've run no tests on me...

  nor have you run any tests on me my dear. However, I believe if i go down to a doctor, and tell him i hear and see someone who claim he is the LORD, that would be diagnostic of a whole lot of stuff other than him actually being the lord (not saying you should, by all means, i dont think its bad for you). "the evidence" refer to the body of knowledge which lead the doctor to that conclusion. Alternatively, we can make a test: I write a number on a piece of paper between 1 and 10^6, and your Lord try to guess it? you see my hypothesis is that your lord will not say anything you do not allready know.
• 

  AGuest

  Sigh...

  Oh boy, Jesus must have answered the first 10'000 questions before you accepted the voice you hear is actually him and not the average neural dysfunction!

  My "neurals" function just find, dear Bohm. Indeed, that's why I saw the "holes" in the good Dr.'s theory.

  no matter how slow i read that it seem like someone is comparing the scientific world at large to the WTBTS.

  Perhaps I should have said that the WTBTS mimicks the scientific world... But you missed the point, of course, which is that BOTH state as "truth"... or, at least try to get others to believe it is... things that aren't necessarily true. Heck, drug companies do it all the time ("Take this drug and it'll cure such and so!" Only to find out later it kills as much, if not more, than it cures. But, hey, it's "science"...).

  You also missed that I didn't dispute that there ARE black holes... or positive/negative energy... or protons... or even the Big Bang. All of which science has either proven... or supports. I took issue with a TV program that purported to give an open-minded look at an expert's theory... but which actually tried to covertly push the theory as "truth."

  Again, you should at least watch the program.

  Now, I must be done with this with you, dear Bohm. It's irrelevant and very flimsy attempt by you to change the subject and deflect from the issues. Take your offense at what I posted; it was my opinion... and based on EVIDENCE: the shows and articles I read, both from a scientific POV, and a religious POV. I personally do NOT see much difference... in the "SALE" of either. You DO see a difference; okay, so be it. Obviously, you and I aren't watching/reading the same stuff. Surprise.

  Again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  wobble

  "My hypothesis is that your lord will not say anything you do not already know"

  I think that is perhaps on the way to being a Theory, he never has to anyone that we can test.
• 

  AGuest

  "My hypothesis is that your lord will not say anything you do not already know"

  Well, THAT certainly doesn't apply to me: I am often blown away by what he tells/shows me. Didn't have a CLUE.

  he never has to anyone that we can test.

  So, what I am, dear Wobs (again, peace to you!)? Chopped liver? I'm here... and haven't run from any test, technically or literally, put upon me. Heck, I'll take a polygraph, if someone wants to set it up. An MRI... whatever. Just tell me when and where (although, some kind of a sonar might be a better "test")...

  Peace!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA