We're not talking about those things. Stay on topic. We're discussing the creation of the universe, nothing more, nothing less. As usual, when pinned down with facts you guys change the subject. The practice of science in relation to the creation demands one be agnostic. There can be no other way. You claim to believe in atheism which proclaims to be certain there is no Creator. Certainty can only come from a strong religous belief.
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.
Theologians Think Theyâre Smarter Than Stephen Hawking
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
We're not talking about those things. Stay on topic. We're discussing the creation of the universe, nothing more, nothing less. As usual, when pinned down with facts you guys change the subject. The practice of science in relation to the creation demands one be agnostic. There can be no other way. You claim to believe in atheism which proclaims to be certain there is no Creator. Certainty can only come from a strong religous belief.
Quote from jem:
A top down approach requires 100% speculation as there is absolutely no evidence of a second universe let alone a multiverse.
We just showed a video with Penrose telling you that the multiverse is just a collection of ideas. (paraphrase - but pretty damn accurate. )
Don't you understand his point... because science does not work if it says a Creator did it... it must find a way to explain why the universe seems so finely tuned.
You can suggest a reason it is so finely tuned is that when you take... the multiverse - gravity and super symmetry with a top down approach... you can explain why our universe is fine tuned.
It would be as if gravity molded this tree or line of universes to be the way it is.
You don't understand what's being said. You're quoting Hawking so you should start from here and stop confusing yourself with bits and pieces you keep lifting while attempting to form religious pre-conclusions ...
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." Stephen Hawking
Top down OR bottom up approaches would still rely on the same spontaneous creation.
Quote from Brass:
Yeah, just your average Harvard magna cum laude Constitutional scholar.
You mean besides jem and Trader666, who are ready to dismiss Hawking at the drop of a hat with their unmatched understanding of theoretical physics and cosmology (and everything else).
They're both richer than you and they're both Democrats.
Obama got good grades at Harvard. Big deal. I graduated from MIT with an A average. So what? Obama, the "Constitutional scholar", has clearly demonstrated that he either doesn't know what's in the Constitution or doesn't care. The politician who is a real Constitutional scholar is Ron Paul. Paul never got a law degree but he did do something Obama didn't do -- he read the Constitution and the writings of those who ratified and argued for it, and knows what it means. Obama started a war in Libya with no authorization of any sort from congress (never mind a proper declaration of war). Where does the Constitution say a president can do that? Obama pushed for the re-authorization of the Patriot Act, which strips away your 4th Amendment rights. God save us from Harvard educated "Constitutional scholars."
Yes, Buffet and Soros are Democrats and much richer than me. There are plenty of Republicans who are much richer than me too. That proves nothing.
Quote from stu:
You don't understand what's being said. You're quoting Hawking so you should start from here and stop confusing yourself with bits and pieces you keep lifting while attempting to form religious pre-conclusions ...
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." Stephen Hawking
Top down OR bottom up approaches would still rely on the same spontaneous creation.
What troll you are... I have been spoon feeding this science to you for years... where now you finely make some reasonably close to accurate statements. You have been arguing that no scientists say our universe appears finely tuned...
But, arguendo...
And, after that spontaneous creation... you need to explain why the values for that universe turned out to be so finely tuned for life.
I am on topic. You are referring to unfalsifiable theories that lead to nowhere, whatever they may be. Whether they are about the creation of the universe or about imaginary celestial teapots presented for the sake of argument to show you how silly you are, they have a string of consistency. They are useless. So when you are pinned down with the facts, you resort to attempted gravitas ("creation of the universe!") when the QUALITY of that theory is no better than the one in favor of the existence of unicorns. Subject matter is irrelevant when discussing the quality of a theory. Whether you choose not to see it, or are genuinely incapable of doing so, well, only you know that for sure.Quote from CaptainObvious:
We're not talking about those things. Stay on topic. We're discussing the creation of the universe, nothing more, nothing less. As usual, when pinned down with facts you guys change the subject. The practice of science in relation to the creation demands one be agnostic. There can be no other way. You claim to be believe in atheism which proclaims to be certain there is no Creator. Certainty can only come from a strong religous belief.
Quote from CaptainObvious:
We're not talking about those things. Stay on topic. We're discussing the creation of the universe, nothing more, nothing less. As usual, when pinned down with facts you guys change the subject. The practice of science in relation to the creation demands one be agnostic. There can be no other way. You claim to be believe in atheism which proclaims to be certain there is no Creator. Certainty can only come from a strong religous belief.
The practice of science in relation to the creation demands one be agnostic.
Rubbish. Agnostic is 'can't know'.
There's nothing in science or anything scientific that says it can't be known how the universe came about, or what you call creation.
There is in practice, really no such thing as being religiously agnostic. It's just a term for someone who doesn't want to use a word stigmatized by the religious.
If you don't know if you believe or not then you are not actually a believer. That's atheist.
Quote from rew:
Obama got good grades at Harvard. Big deal. I graduated from MIT with an A average. So what? Obama, the "Constitutional scholar", has clearly demonstrated that he either doesn't know what's in the Constitution or doesn't care. The politician who is a real Constitutional scholar is Ron Paul. Paul never got a law degree but he did do something Obama didn't do -- he read the Constitution and the writings of those who ratified and argued for it, and knows what it means. Obama started a war in Libya with no authorization of any sort from congress (never mind a proper declaration of war). Where does the Constitution say a president can do that? Obama pushed for the re-authorization of the Patriot Act, which strips away your 4th Amendment rights. God save us from Harvard educated "Constitutional scholars."
Yes, Buffet and Soros are Democrats and much richer than me. There are plenty of Republicans who are much richer than me too. That proves nothing.
I thought Obama never released his grades... how does brass know how he did at Harvard. Just a question, I just know I have never read about a grade and I know Brass has a habit of mis interpreting with massive left spin.
Have you ever considered applying that level of scrutiny to any of your theistic notions?Quote from jem:
I thought Obama never released his grades... how does brass know how he did at Harvard. Just a question, I just know I have read about a grade and I know Brass has a habit of mis interpreting english with massive left spin.