Theologians Think Theyâre Smarter Than Stephen Hawking
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
My argument here has nothing to do with religion, other than the fact that I find it absurd that theologians are so audacious as to attack science with such a weak basis, as they are prone to do. I wouldn't even have a problem with that if they didn't command such a large following that often refuse to think on their own. Label me whatever you wish.
Quote from RCG Trader:
People here on ET think they are smarter than Hawking, or the POTUS, or SCOTUS, or Warren Buffet, or George Soros......it's funny, that's why I come here for my daily jokes.
I am smarter than POTUS (Obama). That's a low bar to meet. Obama is just average smart, no more. Hawking, okay, I'm not in his league, and nobody else here is either (including Freethinker). As for Buffet and Soros, one is a far better investor and the other is a far better trader than me, but how smart they are on other things I don't know. Certainly Soro's politics doesn't show evidence of high intelligence.
So when Hawking wrote this we all agree...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
".... In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately
led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
---
And gravity causes the universe if you adopt the speculation of a multiverse with a top down approach.
Which is far more speculative than observing the fine tunings.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
".... In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately
led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.
---
And gravity causes the universe if you adopt the speculation of a multiverse with a top down approach.
Which is far more speculative than observing the fine tunings.
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.
Sorry, it's game, set, match. Either you're agnostic as science would demand one to be, or you believe in some form of religion. Yours happens to be atheism.
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.
Couldn't address the challenge head on, could you? Game, set, match indeed. Again: Are you agnostic about every fantasy ever imagined by anyone throughout history? Unicorns, tooth fairies, Zeus, flying spaghetti monsters, Russell's celestial teapot? Unfalsifiable theories serve no purpose. They don't lead to understanding. They are mind clutter.