No question about it. Believe or don't believe, but to claim absolute certainty is a fools errand.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hawking: God did not create Universe
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
No question about it. Believe or don't believe, but to claim absolute certainty is a fools errand.
Multiple universes is eternity for atheists...
I would say multiverses are the same as God for atheists.
They take faith because they are unproven and probably un"testable" and (in one of them) anything and everything that can happen happens.
Sort of making them all knowing and all powerful.
And as Hawking said essentially making you God of that universe that just happens to be the way you experienced it.
They take faith because they are unproven and probably un"testable" and (in one of them) anything and everything that can happen happens.
Sort of making them all knowing and all powerful.
And as Hawking said essentially making you God of that universe that just happens to be the way you experienced it.
Multiple universes is eternity for atheists...
Speaking for others is a bad habit of theists.Multiple universes is eternity for atheists...
No question about it. Believe or don't believe, but to claim absolute certainty is a fools errand.
hmmm
That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; Proverbs 22:21
hmmm
That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; Proverbs 22:21
Just because the Book is self serving is not relevant to a creator---- I think a creator can exist outside of description in an ancient tome.
with that said, one can be "personally" certain but can not make this belief a certainty for everyone, as SH does. surf
Last edited:
Some ideas or concepts do not require the breaking of natural laws, as we currently understand them, nor do they require blind faith in the supernatural. So until shown to be unreasonable or unlikely, we can regard them as at least a possibility. On the other hand, if a physicist such Susskind unwisely chooses language such as "fine tuned" to mean only that if things were a little different, the universe as we know it, would not exist, he has immediately opened a door through which someone will be only to happy to step, claiming that if "fine tuning" exists there must therefore be a fine tuner. But such a loose misreading of Susskind's remark can only make sense in the supernatural world of religion, where the natural laws are irrelevant.
Last edited:
Piezoe... did you understand this...
I can get you a primer if you need it
This is not loose wording... this is very precise calulated wording being use to explain away the incredible fine tuning of our universe... with a multiverse...
Our universe's fine tuning is incredibly "unnatural" the way science uses the word natural.
If you do not understand that ... you do not understand the standard model.
watch this again... you are smearing one of top guys in the field of physics as loose with his wording. ... he does not screw around with his words... he is very precise. Surely you realize Scientists of this caliber are not loose with words.
This guy has a real mind... rather than gruber us... he waited til Polchinski came up with the 10 to 500 string theory solutions... before he even brought this out to the public in a book.
[/quote]
I can get you a primer if you need it
This is not loose wording... this is very precise calulated wording being use to explain away the incredible fine tuning of our universe... with a multiverse...
Our universe's fine tuning is incredibly "unnatural" the way science uses the word natural.
If you do not understand that ... you do not understand the standard model.
watch this again... you are smearing one of top guys in the field of physics as loose with his wording. ... he does not screw around with his words... he is very precise. Surely you realize Scientists of this caliber are not loose with words.
This guy has a real mind... rather than gruber us... he waited til Polchinski came up with the 10 to 500 string theory solutions... before he even brought this out to the public in a book.
Last edited:
for instance... this is what finding the higgs boson confirmed...
http://www.economist.com/node/21558248
The constant gardener
One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%.
Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world.
http://www.economist.com/node/21558248
The constant gardener
One problem is that, as it stands, the model requires its 20 or so constants to be exactly what they are to an uncomfortable 32 decimal places. Insert different values and the upshot is nonsensical predictions, like phenomena occurring with a likelihood of more than 100%.
Nature could, of course, turn out to be this fastidious. But physicists have learned to take the need for such fine-tuning, as the precision fiddling is known in the argot, as a sign that something important is missing from their picture of the world.