Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Quote from Trader666:
Nothing else other than specific examples of your ignorance and STUpidity that you feebly try to troll away?
It's ok, it's already been established you can't hold a conversation.
Making silly false comments and infantile petty insult is not generally considered a form of argument as you obviously imagine it is.
Go on then, address and argue.
You'll be the one with all the work to do making up unsubstantiated assertions from misrepresenting what he says.
What's your point anyway, as if you ever had one, in choosing his criticisms of a bottom up approach when he prefers top down? Did you just want to see him say "fine tuned" . What a complete loon you are.
If you're so keen on what Stephen Hawking explains , why didn't you choose any of these quotes of his ....
- "A central idea that underlies the top down approach is the interplay between the fundamental laws of nature and the operation of chance in a quantum universe. Intop down cosmology, the structure and complexity of alternative universes in thelandscape is predictable from first principles to some extent, but also determined by the outcome of quantum accidents over the course of their histories."
"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."
...because you don't like them. They don't fit your weird ideas with words like fine and tuning.
You are such an infant.
Almost everytime I personally review what hawking says... I state... "he says" if there is one universe our universe looks carefully fine tuned - or you can choose what he does and speculate there is a multiverse.
since 2006 hawking couples the multiverse speculation with top down thinking to explain that if you have a universe with say... gravity the way our is it... using top down thinking you can say gravity sort of selected our universe to be the way it is.
I actually like Hawking's speculation because it explains a model of cosmology I have been working on since I took advanced physics in high school. It seems that that many of our scientific advances come just in time for our level of thought or understanding... or need.
______________________
A new model of Cosmology
______________________
For instance some day we may need faster than light travel. Around that time... we may be just advanced enough to figure it out... and it will look like the option was there all along. But it may not have been.
It seems to me that top down cosmology is just how a omnipotent agent would set our universe up. It will look like "we" just discovered the science and that ftl travel was possible the whole time.
However it is more likely that when the Outside Agent presented ftl constants... those constants select all the past universe histories consistent with it... to make it look like FTL travel was inevitably part of our potential.
I call it the Topthropic Principle.
Now a second issue for these top down models I would like to discuss with hawking is whether the consistent universes merge into one line.... or even if the inconsistent models merge or disappear.
I have been working on the topthropic principle.
I still can not get over how wasteful all those other universes are.
I now propose topthropic with a twist.
The Omnipotent Agent presents the new constant and it changes history of our one universe to make the universe consistent with the constant.
Now I am essentially back to the model I developed in high school only I am piggybacking the logic of top down cosmology.
I still can not get over how wasteful all those other universes are.
I now propose topthropic with a twist.
The Omnipotent Agent presents the new constant and it changes history of our one universe to make the universe consistent with the constant.
Now I am essentially back to the model I developed in high school only I am piggybacking the logic of top down cosmology.
you are a humorous example of what religion does to the mind:
THE PARADOX OF OMNIPOTENCE:
1. Either god can create a stone that he cannot lift, or he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.
2. If god can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.
3. If god cannot create a stone that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent
4. Therefore by definition, god is not omnipotent.
THE PARADOX OF OMNISCIENCE
1 If God does not know all events past and future then he is not omniscient.
2 If God does know all events both past and future (especially future) then he cannot make any decision or choose a course of action, because he already knows his future actions for all eternity. He is paralysed by his own omniscience.
3 If God can make a decision or choose a course of action that he did not know in advance, then he is not omniscient.
1. You really need to stop posting... you are manifesting your low comprehension.
You do not even realize how top down cosmology effects your quaint little philosophical conundrum. If top down cosmology and a multiverse exists. If there is a Rational Agent... and he made a choice, it would look like he was omnipotent and omniscient to us. In certain respects top down and multiverse... solves all the philosophical challenges.
It is sort of fun so I will explain it to you.
You have to look at it from our perspective and the Rational Agents perspective.
Some choices go backwards in top down cosmology by sort of selecting the winning decision tree of universes. So to us God would appear omniscient and omnipotent. God decides we need fire and boom the wining line of universes is selected. It really explains why our universe seems like a thought experiment.
Quotes from Einstein.
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
The scientistsâ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/
2. You are also a tool because by definition God is outside of time. So before and after may have no meaning.
3. And finally even if you are within time... just because you aware if the result of your choice, that awareness does not mean it is not a choice.
cognitive dissonance â the intellectual crisis that occurs when a failed belief system or philosophy is confronted with proof of its implausibility. ...