Why do atheist's fear God?

[jem]

gravity is a fanciful answer made up by Hawking within the framework of a multiverse and top down cosmology.

when you are willing to produce a cite hawkings quote... I will ask you to go up a few paragraphs in his book and see for yourself... its only within the framework of an unseen untested idea of almost infinite universe.

Your faith in the unknown and untested is admirable.

Ah yes. A super intelligence. One of the qualities of intelligence at work. Thanks for pointing that out.

Can't be actual gravity, nah. But instead, a form of Intelligent Gravity.
The next step in the infinite regress of faith based Intelligent Gravity beliefs .
Super Intelligent Gravity.

Hell yea, that'll work.

 

[jem]

1. note the last paragraph or two for proof it is within the context of a multiverse.




"By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Also, most of the fundamental constants appearing in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. For example, if protons were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms.

If one assumes that a few hundred million years in stable orbit is necessary for planetary life to evolve, the number of space dimensions is also fixed by our existence. That is because, according to the laws of gravity, it is only in three dimensions that stable elliptical orbits are possible. In any but three dimensions even a small disturbance, such as that produced by the pull of the other planets, would send a planet off its circular orbit, and cause it to spiral either into or away from the sun.

The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way.

Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.

Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html[/quote]

 

[stu]

1. note the last paragraph or two for proof it is within the context of a multiverse.

You need to learn how to read in paragraphs.

There's nothing in the paragraph previous to the last two which needs a multiverse to describe how "the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing."

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." Stephen Hawking

It's just you, your false reasoning and your usual misinterpreting.

 

[jem]

Its called context... and here it is in the last sentence.
If not... for the idea of top down cosmology and multiple universe with many histories... go ahead and try and give us your conjecture on how gravity... which comes about after the big bang happens created the big bang. by the way I am aware of quotes from Hawking and particularly Guth that are going to counter any b.s.. you dream up here.

here is the proper context...

"Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation."

 

[stu]

Its called context... and here it is in the last sentence.
If not... for the idea of top down cosmology and multiple universe with many histories... go ahead and try and give us your conjecture on how gravity... which comes about after the big bang happens created the big bang. by the way I am aware of quotes from Hawking and particularly Guth that are going to counter any b.s.. you dream up here.

here is the proper context...

"Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation."

Yeah it's called context and you are missing all of it.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason [.......] why the universe exists, why we exist."
Could that be any clearer!?

Then you go out of context from multiverse, to quote Hawking explaining M Theory, which is again different, and separate from spontaneity.
Separate things that potentially lead to the next. Not all the same relying on each other.....I think if you weren't trying to insert your magic 'Tuner' into everything, you might not be so confused. What am I saying, of course you would.

As for gravity, it doesn't need conjecture. Gravity exists in all states that have energy. Including a singularity, including the big bang.

Earlier I suggested you go educate yourself about the Hierarchy Problem in relation to some nonsense you were talking about the standard model and fine tuning.
Now I suggest you go read up on Gravitons and learn how the fingerprint of gravity is on everything to do with the universe.

 

[jem]

1. you rather disgenuously left out the context... troll... it is within the context of universes being created. as I said... its the multiverse coupled with his top down cosmology theory.
go back and read the paper I have cited to you that he wrote on the subject. (by the way I know all about the hierarchy problem... )

2. next time for context include the sentence before your quote...

"As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing."

and the ones after...

"Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.

Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation."

 

[FortuneTeller]

The other day I saw spontaneous creation. An airplane just popped up in my front yard. I don't know what to do with it. I don't have an airstrip in order to take off! Maybe one of those will appear also!

 

[stu]

The other day I saw spontaneous creation. An airplane just popped up in my front yard. I don't know what to do with it. I don't have an airstrip in order to take off! Maybe one of those will appear also!

Just quit the drugs and the airplane will spontaneously disappear.

 

[stu]

1. you rather disgenuously left out the context... troll... it is within the context of universes being created. as I said... its the multiverse coupled with his top down cosmology theory.
go back and read the paper I have cited to you that he wrote on the subject. (by the way I know all about the hierarchy problem... )

1. You are missing the context ...troll...the sentence is within the context of the universe. Yes you did say multiverse and it's why you're ignoring context.
( by the way, if you understood anything about the the Hierarchy Problem, you wouldn't utter the bullshit you do.)

2. next time for context include the sentence before your quote...

2. Problem is...troll.. I did include the sentence.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

That sentence is about spontaneous creation.
Not about multiverse. Not about top down cosmology. Those are other contexts you keep jumping into...troll.

You don't have a multiverse for spontaneous creation. It's the other way around

go ahead and try and give us your conjecture on how gravity... which comes about after the big bang happens created the big bang.

...well?? You've been given the answer to your uneducated question....troll...
Gravity exists in all states of energy.
Aren't you going to quote more out of context Hawking or Guth, to further your long line of absurd comments on stuff you don't understand to ignorantly dream up ridiculous conclusions about it?....troll.

 

[jem]

1. Here is the sentence before your sentence and your sentence together... I have bolded and underlined the s to give your sentence proper context.

"As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

2. I noticed you ducked the important part again....

Now given the fact you are making the argument that gravity can create a universe...in a non multiverse environment.... please give us the science and links supporting your conjecture.

I will give you a hint... one guy made the argument decades ago and famous scientists have been knocking it down ever since. Because as Hawking has stated you need 3 things to make a universe... it not nothing...
Hawkings top down cosmology speculates gravity molds the histories of the universe an observer would be in... but it really does not make a universe.


here is the paper I have presented to you many times before... explaining this.


In these two paragraphs Hawking will disabuse you of all your misrepresentations.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
Here hawking explains that if you work with the standard model that we have the universe is carefully fine tuned or you have to invoke the notion of eternal inflation (infinite universes.)
1.
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
cosmology a€™s 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.
Here - Hawking disabuses Stu of his other bullshit. We see Hawking clearly speak of alternate universes.
2. page 2.
Here we put forward a different approach to cosmology in the string landscape,
based not on the classical idea of a single history for the universe but on the quantum
sum over histories [12]. We argue that the quantum origin of the universe naturally
leads to a framework for cosmology where amplitudes for alternative histories of the
universe are computed with boundary conditions at late times only. We thus envision
a set of alternative universes in the landscape, with amplitudes given by the no
boundary path integral [13].