Stephen Hawking: 'There is no God,' says physicist in final book
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
There is no God -- that's the conclusion of the Stephen Hawking, whose final book is published Tuesday.
The book, which was completed by his family after his death, presents answers to the questions that Hawking said he received most during his time on Earth.
Other bombshells the British scientist left his readers with include the belief that alien life is out there, artificial intelligence could outsmart humans and time travel can't be ruled out.
Hawking, considered one of the most brilliant scientists of his generation, at the age of 76.
"There is no God. No one directs the universe," he writes in "Brief Answers to the Big Questions."
"For centuries, it was believed that disabled people like me were living under a curse that was inflicted by God," he adds. "I prefer to think that everything can be explained another way, by the laws of nature."
Hawking suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a neurodegenerative disorder also known as Lou Gehrig's Disease, for most of his adult life.
The scientist died while still working on the book, which his family and colleagues finished with the help of his vast personal archives.
'Increasingly looking inward'
While Hawking spoke of his lack of belief in God during his life, several of his other answers are more surprising.
"There are forms of intelligent life out there," he writes. "We need to be wary of answering back until we have developed a bit further."
And he leaves open the possibility of other phenomena.
"Travel back in time can't be ruled out according to our present understanding," he says. He also predicts that "within the next hundred years we will be able to travel to anywhere in the Solar System."
"He realized that people specifically wanted his answers to these questions," the scientist's daughter, Lucy Hawking, who helped complete the book, told CNN.
Hawking saw the world on the brink of a "vast transformative change" when he died, she noted, adding: "He's asking us not to go into the future blindly. How good is the track record of the human race in using advances in technology for the good of ordinary people?"
In remarks prepared by Hawking and played at the launch of the book in London on Monday, the scientist also turned his attention to the world he was leaving behind.
"With Brexit and Trump now exerting new forces in relation to immigration and the development of education, we are witnessing a global revolt against experts, and that includes scientists," Hawking said.
Hawking had been a critic of the United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union, and " in 2016.
His greatest concern, his daughter said, "is how divided we've become," adding: "He makes this comment about how we seem to have lost the ability to look outward, and we are increasingly looking inward to ourselves."
Hawking's final message to readers, though, is a hopeful one.
Attempting to answer the question "How do we shape the future?" in the book's final chapter, the scientist writes: "Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet."
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
65 visitors
Oh, then that settles it, lol.
I am interested in what a brilliant intellect like Hawking has to say, but no one knows if there is or isnt a God. It is a matter of faith.
Artificial intelligence may prove to be a greater threat to humanity than belief in God is.
The question is, "what do you base that faith on"?
I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow because it has done that for every day of my life. People have faith in God because they are told to. Bit of a difference.
I really don't think that is the case.
People often bring up belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny as being analogous to belief in God. But individuals outgrow belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. When people make a decision about belief in God they are usually adults who weigh aspects of the question for themselves. I doubt if you will find many adults at all who will agree that they believe in God because their parents or teachers told them to.
Many people confuse belief and faith in something with faith and belief in God.
Sorry, I completely disagree with this statement.
People who believe in God, are 99+% of the time raised in a Religious family, they are taught from the age that they can understand speech about "God", they are taken to church, they are subjected to religious stories and other icons, by the time they are adults they have been so indoctrinated into the faith, that they have accepted it unquestioningly, and in many cases take offense to anyone questioning that faith.
.
If someone tells you that there is an invisible unicorn that you cannot see, feel, touch, hear, taste, or smell, that does not impact the world in any visible manner, would you believe that person? The Bible talks about actual physical actions that its God has produced on people and their surroundings, actions, if true, even today would prove beyond doubt that there is a supreme being. Conveniently however all those happened prior to recorded history by over a hundred years, and was told down the ages by word of mouth until someone was able to write them down. Ever play telephone in school? Where 1 person was told something and in turn they told the next and the next until it finally got to the last person? It was amazing how far off the end result was, but that was only about 20 people, the Bible stories were handed down from one person to the next for over a hundred years.
.
Religion was created to explain the inexplicable before we had a grasp on the world around us. It was stories told to soothe us during times of fear. Who doesn't like to be told that everything will be all right no matter what?
how is that accomplished ? i know people who no longer believe in it simply because they were told that Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny doesn't exist - do you know a different way that people "outgrow" the belief ?
when a child does believe in the Easter Bunny and/or Santa Claus - don't they have "faith" that those two entities exist ?
Also keep in mind that children demand proof of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny by way of presents and colored eggs, mall Santa's and Easter egg hunts.. Why don't people demand proof of their God as well?
Those that claim god is real and exists certainly cannot produce any such proof themselves either.
They're not just offended by others questioning their faith. They're convinced that they must be afraid of questioning it, themselves. Lack of faith in God gets you a ticket to Hell.
People that believe 'God' is real and exists should never be allowed to be elected to any public office.
I would be more worried about people in public office who say god talks to them or tells/guides them regarding policy.
Hawking didn't have any proof of alien life but he insists it out there. So because the great scientist has spoken, I guess it must be true.
And what does that teach us about his conclusions on . . . well, on anything, right?
E.A The Photo I posted with what Hawking said and a rebuttal to it is decade old, and His Refusal to accept what is now commonly accepted " Black Holes " and yet the " Blind and Faithfull " still go to the " Altar of Worship " :-)
So who are the ones that lack the ability to accept FACTS as they are Proven?
No, that is not how science works. It does not matter (at all) what a particular scientist concludes. What matters are the explanations and the evidence supporting same.
This is a fundamental thing to understand about science.
Scientists are not infallible. This really should be obvious. Science does not operate on authority or celebrity - it operates on results.
Odd how there is a trend among the religious to try to bring science down to a belief system - something that is based on authority or celebrity. Well, that is the realm of religion, not science. The playing field is not going to be leveled. Religion is man-made wishful thinking that has no basis in hard evidence. Science follows the evidence to where it leads.
He does? Show me where Hawking states that the existence of extraterrestrials is a certainty. Hawking concluding that extraterrestrial life to be more likely than not might be a very sound conclusion - we need to review his facts and argument. But I challenge you to find Hawking declaring truth - declaring certain knowledge of extraterrestrial life.
Declaring truth (even sans evidence) is a religious thing; not a scientific thing.
Agreed. That's why I think attaching the label "science" to much of what Hawking did or said is unjustified. He was a philosopher - one who changed his mind quite a bit.
Hawking was a brilliant theoretical physicist. He changed his mind like any other credible scientist would based on new information.
Hard to imagine how anyone could claim he does not deserve recognition as a scientist. If Hawking, with his accomplishments, does not deserve to be called a scientist in your way of thinking then you probably only recognize a handful of people worldwide as scientists.
I find it difficult to take your comment seriously; why would anyone make such an easily refuted claim? Strange.
Once again, EA proves that when the completely science ignorant try to talk about science hilarity is sure to follow. Hawking never, repeat NEVER "refused to accept" Black Holes[sic]. Nor did he mean to even imply that black holes do not exist. Here's what did say (and we'll of course forgive EA for not having a clue what it means):
The entire sentence that contains the phrase "there are no black holes" was this one:
The full treatment for what Hawking said and meant is here (which is also the source for the above quote):
I am grateful for this and yet another demonstration by believers of the complete lack of knowledge or understanding of anything in the rational scientific world.
Or, at least and likely more often to create and stoke fear/hatred of different groups of humans from others and use these tales and beliefs as justification for destroying those groups. You still see plenty of evidence for that use of religion every day right here. That's not even going into the ways religion was been used to subjugate different elements--often those with rational ideas--within the group. The history of religion is a long and mostly ugly and brutal one and it continues.
Okay, assuming "we" now have a grasp on the world around us - what is your and Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו rational explanation for why after seeing all the brilliance of science that even some scientists are devoted to various beliefs in God? (Please do not insult my intelligence by being diminutive of these men and woman, plenty which are leaders in their respective careers and fully fit to speak to this and other matters.)
Indoctrination as children, for the most part.
Didn't you once or several times write about your "indoctrination" into religion as a child or teen for the most part? Or, do I have someone else in mind? Please clarify.
In addition, some atheist scientists discover faith in God later as adults. Are you aware of this?
I was raised in the church from the time I was an infant. As were most people who are Christians, so my story is pretty common.
I'm willing to bet that the number of scientists who convert to Christianity after having been lifelong atheists is tiny in comparison to the number of scientists who either started out as Christians and remained so, or started out as Christians and became atheists later in life.
i completely agree - we are not born into this world as infants believing in God or anything else, you must be indoctrinated into that belief.
Who is making comparisons, anyway? My point was to ask Ozzwald and Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו for a rational explanation for why after seeing all the brilliance of science that even some scientists are devoted to various beliefs in God. Indoctrination in and of itself is not sufficient to explain this phenomenon, since indoctrination can not sustain faith in God.
Sure, it can.
Case in point: It did not sustain and maintain yours. Furthermore, indoctrination can not empower faith in God. Again, the operative question is why some modern-age scientists persist in faith in a belief in God.
Anecdotal. It didn't sustain mine. It may well sustain others'.
And yes, indoctrination can empower faith in god. Faith in god may well be nothing more than indoctrination, period.
You can move to the operative question and thereby end idle suppositions.
Societal indoctrination - religion is constantly out there being sold to those inclined to buy the storyline.
I answered the question. You don't like the answer. (Shrug)
Yes. And scientists are subject to peer pressure, too.
And it does not even have to be 'pressure'. Religion is everywhere. Funny how some people think that scientists are somehow immune to societal indoctrination. That they do not have circumstances in their lives where religious beliefs become appealing (if not desired).
Now, you're projecting onto me your feelings. When you want to know my feelings on a matter—ask me directly.
Not overt pressure, no. But simply living in a society where many consider religious beliefs are considered to be an unquestioned part of everyone's upbringing and current worldview - to me, that is a subtle and pervasive form of peer pressure. Societal indoctrination is an apt description. No overt pressure necessary. Just start 'em young.
Ok, then. You choose not to accept my answer. That doesn't mean I haven't given one.
I agree.
It most likely took millenia for mankind to realize that the sun does not "rise", but rather the earth revolves. It may take many more millenia for mankind to determine whether there is a God or not - until then, all possibilities still exist, so criticism of either of those possibilities is premature.
I think it will be even longer than that. The only way to rule out God is to look in every nook and cranny in the universe. And even if we were able to do that, some believers would claim there's a nook or cranny we missed called "Heaven" and our measuring tools simply aren't good enough to find it.
But that's the problem with trying to prove a negative. It's like trying to prove a theoretical invisible haystack somewhere in this enormous universe doesn't contain a sentient needle.
That's why the one making a claim is the one responsible for proving it, not everyone else's responsibility to disprove an unproven statement.
So really, criticism of the side making the claim but who is unable to prove it is reasonable. Criticism of those who continue to ask for proof seems pretty silly. If it were just a "personal spiritual belief" that had no effect on anyone else's lives, it would be just another pointless debate over fiction like who would win in a fight between Wolverine and Deadpool. But because some people insist on injecting their brand of faith into civil society, public schools and our justice system, this debate takes on a while other level of importance.
It might be possible to have hard evidence of a God and thus come to a sound conclusion. Lacking such evidence, I think it is impossible to claim that no God is possible.
That said, it is quite possible to logically prove the God of the Bible is, as described, impossible.
The question is that without ANY evidence whatsoever, why would the belief in a God even exist? How can you make any kind of determination without the ability to weigh any evidence? There is more evidence supporting the existence of Bigfoot than there is supporting the existence of a God.
Belief in a God might exist if for no other reason than it is important that He does to a rather big percentage of the world's population.
That would be you EA
My hypothesis is that gods (various forms) bring comfort as well as harsh consequences to non-believers. The Abrahamic god (i.e. El, Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, ...), in particular, promises to take away the fear of death by granting everlasting life in Heaven. We can see our departed friends and family - they are not lost forever. In addition, the god 'has our back' - a supremely powerful protector who ultimately will not let really bad things happen to the whole of his creation because He has a grand plan for all. And, for non-believers, the worst possible anguish and torture for all of eternity.
Scare the shit out of them to keep them faithful while giving great comfort by circumventing the finality of death. An offer one cannot refuse.
I am convinced a lot of that applies today in spite of all that modern human beings know. The demonstrable contradictory logic of religious defenses suggests (to me) that not only is religious belief NOT based on evidence, it is NOT based on logic either.
I agree to an extent. The belief in Gods brings comfort from all the fears of the unknown that primitive man dealt with, however I believe it was then superseded by organized religion using that belief to gain power and control over those men.
I agree. Religion was recognized thousands of years ago as having profound power to control the masses. Organized religion has been sharpening its tools ever since. What they have now is some extremely effective ensnaring techniques. You gotta hand it to them - they are masters at their game.
I am sorry, who the . . . heaven, is George Carlin that anyone should take his ripping seriously? He is clearly biased against religion - cultural or authentic. Of course, people make themselves subjects of mockery-inside and outside-of the Faith. Because, people are definitely imperfect. Moreover, faith is a journey not a destination! But "funny men" are above all guilty of making us laugh—that and nothing more.
George, I suppose, is an acquired taste. But he often cut right to the core in his humor.
He was a comedic genius and often made very good points and observations with his comedy. His bit on god and religion was spot on and a perfect example too.
Ive enjoyed your your posts 4 long time. Thanks b well.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Hawking’s conclusion is based on what he learned during his life. But science does not operate on the conclusions of the scientists - rather, on the supporting evidence. So clearly this does not settle anything other than the question: ‘did Hawking believe in a creator god?’.
And it may prove to be a greater boon. It's anyone's guess at this point
Artificial intelligence has the probability of exceeding human intelligence, and could determine that anything of lesser intelligence requires elimination like a disease or infectious virus. Have there not already been science fiction stories about such a possibility?
Might go that route, might not. We cannot possibly know at this point in time. What fictional stories state should be irrelevant to anyone's opinion on any subject precisely due to the fact they are fiction.
I guess I'm just a dreamer. Is it fiction that dreamers have become creators? I'm not of the "Ours is not to reason why, ours is just to do or die" school.
Dreamer = creative mind. Much of modern technology was fueled by dreamers.
One of the rare instances where I completely agree with you. As you said, it is a matter of faith, but also a matter of personal choice to believe or not. I respect the decision of both sides either way.
"There is no God. No one directs the universe,"
everything can be explained another way, by the laws of nature."
...................................................................................
“WHATEVER arranged the atoms to be ALL they are IS what I call GOD”
WHATEVER (Includes The laws of nature.)
From one of my previous reply posts:
…………………………………………….
What about instead of fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes (I’ll add Sky fairies, it’s so cute) what IF we called that “POWER” an entity, a spirit, or a force of nature and see if it does sound plausible.
To me it does
“WHATEVER arranged the atoms to be ALL they are IS what I call GOD”
Period
I need no more. I know no more (even though I’ve read the old testament , the new testament, the Book of Moron, and parts of the Koran.) Then I decided to ask myself WTF I really believed…. You see WTF I came up with.
“WHATEVER arranged the atoms to be ALL they are IS what I call GOD”
I’ve yet to have anyone prove me wrong. LOL Of course I don’t spread it around much either but I do listen when others question what I believe. And consider their points for damn sure. I will not be preached to however, I read the man written books myself.
Jedi call that "The Force"
Yeah, but the force is explained by *groan* mitichlorians.
LOL! I forgot about those
Yeah, that's a case of "god" being proven. Talk about a complete disappointment. Perhaps that's why people prefer emotionally satisfying faith over actual proof?
That reminds me of this , especially the 1st part.
I agree 100%. Very well and eloquently put Sir!
How kind of you, Thank you.
That's the point I tried to make when asked the question elsewhere: What created God? My answer was "physics" although I probably should have said "quantum physics" which I think is closer to you've alluded to.
When we look into an electron microscope and see (or do we fantasize or speculate about) electrons revolving around a nucleus as scientifically depicted it always made me think of planets revolving around a sun, and it made me wonder if the countless solar systems in what we consider to be the universe are just countless atoms, making up a greater existence than we can comprehend, and on and on ad infinitum .
The rendering of discrete electrons orbiting the nucleus is art. In reality each electron is a wave function operating at different levels of quantum energy. It is actually very bizarre at this level.
And, to your point, who knows what lies below the particle level. Each particle might be an entire universe.
Yep
And I kind of imagine EVERYTHING as ONE even though the space between the "solids" are unseen by us. not separate anything all a part of the ONE. All interconnected atoms.
Wow, takes me back to chemistry class.
Well one thing that is also mind blowing it the theoretical possibility that each black hole singularity spawns another universe. This is hypothetical (currently) but is a very real consequence of physics as currently understood.
Not long ago I read something about this. Though interesting, the subject hasn't been high on the priorities list. Finally took a little time and it was enjoyable to read.
I keep getting hung up that one myself. The insane effect black holes have on spacetime, the way the moment of formation kind of excludes the rest of the universe outside it, and could very well produce a 'white hole' of new spacetime inside it. Big Bang anyone?
If there is a theory that black holes or white holes could interfere in some way with the passage of time, could that be a method for time travel?
Maybe I should create and post an article on the Everybody Loves Movies group about Time Travel movies such as Star Trek IV: The Journey Home (one of my favourite Star Trek movies or TV shows), Back to the Future, Planet of the Apes, The Time Machine (H.G.Wells)....etc.
Black holes do tend to make their own rules. Add to that the notion of the holographic principle and, in particular, the retention of information at the event horizon so that even with Hawking radiation (ultimately the evaporation of the black hole) information (energy) is not lost.
Reality is so much more interesting than science fiction.
Re-bang hypothesis? Matter cannot escape a black hole, can it?
"The most intense sources of gamma rays, are also the most intense sources of any type of electromagnetic radiation presently known. They are the "long duration burst" sources of gamma rays in astronomy ("long" in this context, meaning a few tens of seconds), and they are rare compared with the sources discussed above. By contrast, "short" gamma-ray bursts of two seconds or less, which are not associated with supernovae, are thought to produce gamma rays during the collision of pairs of neutron stars, or a neutron star and a black hole.
The so-called long-duration gamma-ray bursts produce a total energy output of about 1044 joules (as much energy as our Sun will produce in its entire life-time) but in a period of only 20 to 40 seconds. Gamma rays are approximately 50% of the total energy output. The leading hypotheses for the mechanism of production of these highest-known intensity beams of radiation, are inverse Compton scattering and synchrotron radiation from high-energy charged particles. These processes occur as relativistic charged particles leave the region of the event horizon of a newly formed black hole created during supernova explosion . The beam of particles moving at relativistic speeds are focused for a few tens of seconds by the magnetic field of the exploding hypernova. The fusion explosion of the hypernova drives the energetics of the process. If the narrowly directed beam happens to be pointed toward the Earth, it shines at gamma ray frequencies with such intensity, that it can be detected even at distances of up to 10 billion light years, which is close to the edge of the visible universe."
So technically, theoretically, when a black hole is first formed or when one collides with a neutron star energy does escape in the form of gamma rays, and since energy is matter, matter can escape a black hole, theoretically. Also, Gamma Ray is an awesome metal band
Kind of, by way of time dilation, wherein one observer could experience the passage of time differently than another, but that might not really count as time travel, per se. You don't actually need a black hole for that, either. You can just do it with acceleration, in a spacecraft or something. Fly out from Earth really, really, really fast in some kind of circular trajectory that will bring you back in say a year or so, and more time will have passed on Earth than the year you experienced on your flight (the greater your acceleration, the greater the difference). That would kind of be like traveling a little into the future.
I wrote a rough draft for a science fiction novel based on that once, in which a future eccentric multi-trillionaire (yup, with a t) constructed a ship like that (in secret) as a way for himself and several hundred others to escape a known, upcoming apocalyptic comet collision, with the purpose of using time dilation to come back far enough in the future for the disaster to be over so they could resettle the planet. It seemed like a really good premise at the time, and I had a ton of fun coming up with ship concepts -- shape, facilities, shielding and the like. Maybe I should dig that thing out one of these days and work on it some more.
That's a pretty cool name for it. I Googled that to find out what you meant, but it seems like Google's never heard of it. Did you come up with that yourself? I like it.
Nothing inside the Schwarzchild radius can (barring Hawking radiation, I suppose), but depending on its speed and trajectory relative to the black hole, matter immediately outside that radius could escape its gravity. Not sure what you're getting at, though.
There have been some movies made about escape from our planet in space ships considered to be sort of Noah's Arcs. When Worlds Collide is one, and there is a more recent one where they stay on Earth and ride out a flood but I can't remember its name. Neither of them had reference to time travel, though.
Watched quite a few of those movies and the original Time Machine several times. Love that stuff.
(P..S. BTW, on your Favorite Actresses discussion, your "Cover Girl" is my favourite)
I think Cal was questioning the notion that the singularity of a black hole could be the singularity that spawns an entirely new universe. That would be, in a sense, matter escaping a black hole through the 'back door' in contrast to the understanding that matter cannot escape the gravity of a black hole via the 'front door' (the event horizon).
I failed to mention, I also watched a youtube vid. Until one invests some time on a subject, to consider what may be feasible vs questionable is becomes more difficult.
This vid spent a little time on the history of how the concept came about. It seems the natural tendency to deride new concepts is wide spread. Geology, archeology, anthropology, etc. share this tendency.
So, finally, this concept began gaining traction and since then a lot more thought has been focused on it. One of the analogies someone came up with was of a block of Swiss cheese. Happen to love Swiss cheese, so my interest perked up.
In this analogy, I will call the ether in which these multi verses spawn, was explained as an expanding block of Swiss cheese in which these new universes spawn creating pockets much like the "holes" in Swiss cheese. Interesting.
This block of Swiss cheese was described as ever expanding as well.
Of course, at least in my mind, this raises the question, what realm does this block of Swiss exist in?
I have very little hope that this will be evidenced in my lifetime. Theoretical physics produces hypotheses resulting from extrapolating known physics through the abstraction of mathematics. This means that theoretical physics is rooted in empirical science and formalism, but sans hard evidence one cannot possibly know if the hypothesis is correct. Of course Relativity is a result of theoretical physics too and over time it has been shown to be amazingly accurate.
A little bird inside my head says something else will be alluded to after an answer to the question about the ether beyond the block of Swiss cheese is postulated.
This concept of "re-banging" is not from me. It appears in writings about "oscillating universes" or "cyclic" universes found in books like, The Left Hand of Creation: The Origin and Evolution of the Expanding Universe (Josh D. Barrow, Joseph Silk, New York Basic Books, Inc. 1983. Pages 70-72.)
I ask because of the thinking that space-time inside a black hole is considered infinite; would that infinite "ability" extend in both or all directions.
Ah, thanks. I don't think it's supposed to escape to anywhere, though. It's all still in there, just in an alternate spacetime created by the singularity.
I don't understand what you mean by both or all directions. If black hole singularities create new universes, then the mathematical infinities they have in our universe would simply translate into the mathematical infinities of a big bang inside the black hole. Our universe appears infinite to us, and the new universe would appear infinite to an observer inside it, but they would exist as different spacetimes, as separate realities, so to speak.
Anything going between the two would be in some form of energy, and it would probably be a one-way street. When matter falls into a black hole in our universe it gets incorporated into the singularity and adds its energy equivalency to the mass of the black hole (E = mc^2), but it wouldn't go through as intact matter to the other hypothetical universe. Maybe it gets expressed as virtual particles, or even space itself. Maybe that's what dark energy is: matter in our parent universe falling into a black hole and then being expressed as new, expanding space in ours. That could maybe be why in the early life of our universe we experienced rapid expansion/inflation, maybe the new black hole that made our big bang was feeding heavily on local matter for a good while, translating into lots of expanding space for us. Or maybe it's expressed in many different ways at once, particles and space all at the same time. Who knows? It's all speculation.
Does any of that have anything to do with what you were asking?
Oh, the imagery, the visual, which comes to mind. I was trying not to express ( "back-door," "crunching," "matter") it, pun intended. LOL.
Back to the discussion: Are you suggesting our current existence could, could mind you, be one of a black hole universe? Try to understand (sync with) your overarching point.
As in could black hole singularities be the flip side of big bang singularities and create separate universes? Sure. It's a possibility. I'm not saying they'd be carbon copies of ours, though. They wouldn't all be the same.
It is all within the black hole but on the back door of the singularity. This is all extremely hypothetical of course, but one hypothesis is that a time-reversal on the 'other side of' the singularity yields a white hole that correlates with an expanding universe (expanding from a singularity). So the black hole funnels energy from the event horizon into the singularity and a wormhole effect expands from the singularity (time-reversed) into a new universe.
Then, of course, we have the recent (and intriguing) notion of a higher dimensional universe having black holes whose event horizons host a new universe - albeit one dimension fewer. Thus our own universe might be the event horizon of a 4 dimensional black hole.
Theoretical physics is far more interesting than fiction. But none of this means a damn thing until we have evidence.
Yes, I understand they wouldn't all be the same —if any is the same, because matter has been crunched into a new singularity. (Smile.)
I'm not grasping the time reversal part of that. The new universe ages backwards? Entropy runs backwards and decreases as events unfold? I don't get that at all. If you have the time later, could you point me to where I could read some more about that?
It's intriguing as hell, though. Fun too.
I could be wrong but the theory goes something along the lines of any and all matter which falls into a black hole is pulled down by gravity which it can not escape from, down into a white-hole (hot) singularity and expelled out of the singularity as new material for new universe.
The time reversal refers to ' running ' equations in reverse (which is of course perfectly legit):
This is work by Nikodem Poplawski. Here is one of several summary articles. You will have to request access to the underlying formal paper if you are interested in the underlying mathematics.
Yet another hypothesis to consider.
When Worlds Collide was a very visionary book and movie for it's time. A shame they did not make a sequel movie on the second book After Worlds Collide. I thought that was easily as good as the first!
Thanks for the info and link.
I do believe in intelligent life beyond our solar system. I can't believe that out of the infinite number of stars in our galaxy that Sol is the only star that supports sentient, intelligent life.
Whether we should throw up a big, glaring, bright sign that advertises our existence? Still on the fence about that.
I’m of the opinion not to. We have everything we need right here, maybe “they” don’t.
LOL! I was watching Star Trek:Enterprise last night. The Xindi Reptilians finally approach Earth with their planet killer and one of them says "Shame to destroy that planet with all that water"
Parts of me want us to explore outer space and make First Contact and then other parts of me remember the nightmares I had after watching "Independence Day"
LOL !!
So much wasted potential. Enterprise should have stuck to single episodic stories rather than a season story arc. The show got its foothold in the 4th season. But by then, it was too little, too late. being moved to a Friday night time slot (like ST: TOS) didn't help either.
I dunno. I've been enjoying watching it the last few weeks on Netflix. I watch 2-3 episodes a night. I'm on Season 4 now where the Vulvan High Command is engaged in facsist behaviour
I liked the show too. But it could/should have been better than it was.
One of the best things about the show is not only did it show humanity's growth somewhat, but also that of the races we're already familiar with. Like how the Vulcans, Andorians, and Tellarites all distrusted each other initially, but eventually came together to form the Federation.
Did you see the Mirror universe episode yet? It's one of the best episodes of the series.
I've seen it before, but it hasn't come up during this "viewing" yet. I liked those episodes.
What I liked about Season 3 was Captain Archer committing morally questionable acts to achieve his purpose and that is to save Earth. It makes one question "would I be willing to torture, steal, and murder to save my species from extinction?"
Indeed. And he is clearly grappling with his moral conundrum. his most poignant line regarding his acts [after stealing needed part from alien explorers] was:
Trip: "You did the right thing."
Archer: "It seems the longer we're out here, the more I have to keep telling myself that."
Of course, this is his best statement of the series, and arguably out of all the ST series:
"Up until about a hundred years ago, there was one question that burned in every human, that made us study the stars and dream of travelling to them, 'Are we alone?' Our generation is privileged to know the answer to that question. We are all explorers, driven to know what's over the horizon, what's beyond our own shores. And yet, the more I've experienced, the more I've learned that no matter how far we travel, or how fast we get there, the most profound discoveries are not necessarily beyond that next star. They're within us, woven into the threads that bind us, all of us, to each other. The final frontier begins in this hall. Let's explore it together."
Soval being the first to stand and clap at the end was icing on the cake, especially given the earlier friction between him and Capt. Archer. How can anyone not get the chills from that scene? That one scene sums up Gene Roddenberry's vision perfectly.
The Carl Sagan novel "Contact" and the movie of it are along the lines you suggest. Your concern about advertising our existence is understandable - we really don't want the Clingons to know about us.
chonayta' naDev jup maH, 'ej tera' DIS puS. HupnISMej 'e' law' tlhIngan leghlaHbe'bogh.
I just finished watching "V" on Amazon Prime, the newer one that came out a few years ago. I had started to watch it when it first came out but lost interest.
Anyway, I finished it and all I can say is I had nightmares last night. It did not end on a happy note like the first "V" did
I also believe in not so intelligent life in our existence. Unfortunately, sometimes it might be me...
Good point.
Me I'm a nut in a bucket full of nuts. But occasionally one takes root and grows into a tree....
I agree with you. To believe that we are the only intelligent (?) civilization, and I do use those terms loosely, in the universe has to be the ultimate vanity given the sheer number stars in the heavens. And who is to say that because a civilization is more advanced than us, that they will be a peaceful one?
I trust his expertise and wisdom. I’m not a science denier.
I feel connected to his thoughts as if we both are intellectually on the same level.
"There is no God. No one directs the universe,"
WIERD !
"presents answers to the questions that Hawking said he received most during his time on Earth."
Then who or what was REALLY sending him the info ?
Why wasn't Hawkings on the TV show "Ancient Aliens" !
Hawking does not claim a supernatural or even unusual source of information. This is his conclusion based on what he observed during his life.
But, ultimately, this is simply the conclusion of a human being. It does not mean there is no god any more than words in ancient books mean there is a god. In both cases mere human beings are making claims yet no human being can possibly know with certainty if the universe was created by a sentient entity or evolved from the substance of existence itself.
Thus we consider the supporting argument and move on.
I say that all the time here.
I'm a nut though ….. right ?
Depends on what else you say along with it.
Oh, you mean it's really what "You" say along with it, that makes it worthy.
Got it !
Is it possible to discuss or debate a notion like adults without you making it personal and insulting?
That's the thing - debating a notion like adults.
Don't give me the "Adult" crap.
You have dismissed everything relating to "Humans" I commented with in ALL our discussions before. Now YOU use the "Human" factor relevance, and find yourself to be "True Blue" and "Above and Beyond", because it fits YOUR liking ?
BULLSHIT !
You actually said that just now, after how you constantly post ?
Rebutting a point is not dismissal. If you find my rebuttals wrong then counter with facts and logic. Going personal and derogatory illustrates a weak debate position and accomplishes nothing of value.
Funny though, we were not even debating and you ran directly to personal and negative. Go figure.
Sure it is. If you Now agree, there was no rebuttal needed in the first place.
Do you just "Rebut" for "Rebuttals" sake to just drive up comment counts ?
I rebut points that I find to be wrong. A rebuttal is disagreement with supporting reasons. This is a rather common practice in discussion / debate forums like NT.
Not sure what logic you are using regarding comment counts. Are you suggesting that I am trying to drive up John Russell's comment counts?
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think the Trumpsters are cracking up.
Too late.
I don't know why anybody expends the energy to even reply to him. He's exhausting
I don't know why I bother either. It's more satisfying beating my head against the wall and I get more intelligent replies.
Some people just like to listen to themselves "talk'. I think that individual is in that category.
I just saw a video of husky puppies and their mother all howling. That was way more intelligent than what his name ever writes
Huskies are awesome, aren't they?
I love to hear huskies howling. Definitely more intelligent.
We had a dog part malamute, husky, and wolf. He would howl when he was lonely. When we were upstairs sleeping he would howl and it practically made the walls vibrate. He would howl sometimes when he was in the backyard too.
It is me,
Stop trolling this discussion. Every comment you have made here has either been of no value or personal. Discuss the topic or leave. Only warning.
No one had their arm twisted to respond to my original comment, which by the way, was in reference to comments "Within THE SEED".
Seems someone else wanted it prolonged in a different direction.
Bye now.
They are. If I weren't working, I would love to get one.
LOL! He should have just climbed into bed with somebody
He weighed about 85 pounds. He would have knocked us out of bed!
Same here
I love them. They are great dogs. Beautiful. My Uncle has one. The only thing is I feel bad for it. It gets way to hot down here where I live. When it is 95 degrees I know the poor thing is so hot. I have seen it lay on top of their air vents. It also hates getting wet.
Yes they're not really a hot weather dog, some friends have them and they're perfectly happy bouncing around the back yard at -20C (-8F). My fave thing about them is the way they mutter talk to you, I think it's hilarious.
Suggesting that something supernatural is sending wisdom to select humans throughout history (Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Hawking) in order to disprove its existence? Now THAT's wacky.
I would have to agree with him on this. I just saw the movie "The First Man" and it brought me back to my childhood. The space mission was far more a part of my life than most. My dad was part of the engineering team for the stabilizers to help the LEM land and redock. The irony that has happened over the years is that in the 60's the hippies were against the space program, and now it's the establishment. Meanwhile, both Russia and China are still actively involved. It really kills me that we are so short sighted at the benefits both the moon and Mars.
You bring up an interesting question. How important are "the stars" compared to the earth?
What will we gain by space and interplanetary exploration if we neglect what is happening here on our home planet?
Let's put first things first.
Anyway, when space is privatized we will have the scenario from the movie Aliens , where the corporation wanted to protect the alien monsters biological matter because it was worth something financially.
I totally agree. Tho, I wasn't too pleased when they starting using Velcro on kids' shoes. Kids should learn to tie shoes.
I think it's really cool that your dad was part of the team that engineered the LEM
That is very true. And the space program was not only good for invention, it stimulated the economy.
My dad's signature is on the moon, with all the other people involved with the LEM. I was even allowed into the actual LEM used for Apollo 13. They put us into clean suits that were 5 sizes too large and we took a look inside. My dad teases me and my sister and says we caused the problem with that mission. I have to say, it was really cool to have that as part of my life. I guess that is why I am passionate about it now.
LOL!
Sorry Perrie, I dont see that as a viable option.
IMO: Once earth is domed so is humanity.
But what the hell, easy come easy go.
We'll wait and see what happens and IF climate change is real or imaginary.
My guess is it is real and we will accept it too late.
Throw enough trash into the air long enough, and see.
Man kind is so messed up in so many ways !
Congress pays the bills, not the POTUS. Remember? Our REPUBLICAN congress voted to cut NASA's budget.
And the Bullshit Train never stops chugging away:
It is real AND it is already too late to "accept" it. The recent deadline to try to do anything to ameliorate (as opposed to actually halt the increase much less reverse anything) is the last, best shot we have at possibly adjusting to the effects of massive sea level rise, famine, increased catastrophic weather events and the concomitant massive social upheaval all that will bring. But we already know going in that the science deniers will continue to live in their fantasy world (including some who probably think that a sky fairy will save the planet) and continue to do everything they can to thwart any effort.
and yes many will and would continue to deny it all till their own demise I have little doubt that is true.
But the "deadline" is that locked in stone ? Probably not as well as the possibilities of discoveries that could speed up the "clean up processes.
I still hold out a little hope that it's not over for mankind til almost the last fat lady sings almost the last note.
That is something for you and your family to be very proud of.
Thanks John!
I don't remember that. When I was a teenager we loved the hippies and tried to emulate them. Unless it was something about war in space.
Though we were stoned most of the time.
LOL.. so true.
I was a weekend hippie during the 60s and I don't remember anything negative the hippies felt about the space program, especially since they had a propensity of being spaced-out themselves.
So the fact is, humanity has been working on building not only functional but prosperous societies for millennia. Up until now religion and belief in some deity has been the default position for most of that time, but instead of creating the hoped for utopia, religion has led to some of the worst divisions and has condoned some of the most vile acts against humans ever imagined and continues to do so. Now I admit that in the last century we had a few societies attempt to build on an atheist foundation, but those monumental failures were built by ex-believers who simply replaced God with themselves but changed little else.
I think what Stephen Hawking is saying is that the default position should be atheism on which we base our laws and society. Without any proof, the default should be of disbelief. From there any human is welcome to draw their own personal spiritual conclusions, but we shouldn't be building society around the idea that there is a God and in this region its Allah, in that region Vishnu and over there Christianity or Judaism. That just sows division and the seeds of conflict which inevitably bloom into the violent red rose of war.
If we built society where it was divided between Star Trek fans and Star Wars fans, wouldn't that just invite both to escalate their turf war? Star Trek fans defacing other Star Wars towns murals, writing "Star Wars Sucks!" in bleach on their high school football field. But we don't do that, we don't push our personal fantasy beliefs into public society, yet people are still free to be Star Trek fans or Star Wars fans, and the only tussle you might find between the two are some hilarious nerdy interactions at Comicon. Their beliefs are not being diminishes in any way simply by them not being the center of society.
Why can't we treat religion the same way? Feel free to worship whichever way you want, but don't try to force kids in public schools to do R2-D2 art projects or drama classes reenacting Wrath of Khan unless you also want to teach Klingon and reenact Jabba's party barge scene. If parents want to push Christmas, Easter and other religious holidays into public schools, then they can't be outraged when Muslims seek to do the same having kids do Ramadan projects and Sanskrit calligraphy out of the Koran. But the best answer is to just leave them both out.
If the default was "none", then we wouldn't have any of that pushed in public society, and if anyone wants to practice or look into any religion they want they can, freely, as long as they're not trying to impose their religion on everyone else. Anyone want to indoctrinate their children in the religious beliefs they were indoctrinated in so they can pass on the cycle of abuse, that's fine, but don't expect our public schools, courts and government to reinforce those unproven beliefs.
Belief is not required to be based on proof. Certainty should be based on proof.
Agreed. But some people use 'proof' to mean 'strong evidence'. See Oxford too: " Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement. ".
What would you say if DP would rephrase as: " Without any evidence , the default should be of disbelief."?
I agree. But did we land on the moon using "belief" or a fair amount of "certainty" when calculating orbital trajectories? We based it on the default which was the relative certainty of math and our understanding of physics instead of just guessing and then relying on faith. And not only did they rely on math and physics, but they relied on repeated tests showing proof of concept before ever putting a human in that cockpit. Even then they had many failures along with their successes, but ultimately we achieved some incredible goals which simply wouldn't have been possible if we were still trying to "pray" our way to the moon, or anywhere else.
Excuse me, but what the, . . . heaven is your argument about? Faith in God is about spirituality and prayer is about appealing to Spirit.
Why continue to assert a false dichotomy between praying and actively getting up and doing? Indeed, many people beseech God in prayer and execute immediately afterwards. Many on the scientists on our space programs do. Many medical doctors do. Many teachers do.
It is so tiresome to read some of these comments from some "hard-cases" trying desperately to drive unnecessary wedges between faith and science.
Countering those who seek to position science as a faith-based system. Further, while some scientists have religious beliefs that does not suggest that the scientific method is faith based in any way or that religious faith is compatible with science. The religious view of YECs, for example, are entirely at odds with some of the most well established findings of science such as the age of the Earth and biochemical evolution.
Faith (as in religious faith) has no role in science. Indeed, the scientific method seeks to eliminate conclusions drawn from poor evidence or human bias.
I think you can be a praying scientist, but you'd better still know how to do math
Who do you presently find "seeking to position science as a faith-based system in this thread"?
You should take up discussions and counter-discussions with YECs when and where you find those people. If they are present on NT, maybe they should speak up and be identified so you can "connect" together. However, that issue is not in any way touching on the scope of my comment on spirit, faith, science, scientists, doctors, and teachers.
Absolutely agree. Emphatically.
My point is that everyone is welcome to their faith and spirituality, we just shouldn't design society around it or rely on it to accomplish future goals.
E.A You mean like 90% of SciFi, that in the end tend to come in " touch with God " and hence how they " Motivate the masses " to their Fictional " Worship Temples " like Star Wars and Star Trek
IE: How many of you recall where Science fiction series end with " Nirvana " ( God Stage )?
Considering it has yet to "end", I can only speak to where Star Trek began which was with the core ideal from Gene Roddenberry of humans who had overcome all of our personal division, had done away with the concept of money and had no interpersonal or racial conflicts, a "utopia" at least if not "Nirvana". It was a challenge for the writers of TNG to come up with compelling conflicts when they weren't allowed the normal crew/cast conflicts and drama of jealousy, anger, hate and selfishness.
Now as for the supposed science fiction that comes "in touch with God", the good science fiction shows us that what we often define as "God" could be far from any divine creator and could actually be some higher forms of life that exist in the universe that we'd be unable to tell apart from humans imagined concepts of God.
And the rest of the show's that depict someone "in touch with God", those are simply called fiction, because there's zero science behind them.
I'll agree, as long as the details allow for insights from both intelligent religious people and intelligent non-religious people. Neither side need spend too much time and energy on what is clearly indefensible.
E.A So then You and I are in agreement that " god " can exist, but not as to how and why..
So you will accept that at some stage Humanity can be as a " god " to terraform and generically modify organism!
And I doubt that YOU and I will have a disagreement that that might well have already occurred in the PAST meaning that a " god " might well exist now.
Now what do WE disagree on again?
Read the comment as a whole. All those sentences work together to express an idea.
Hint: we use examples to express concepts - demanding that each example be a direct rebuttal to a comment made in a thread is a new rule that is not likely to catch on.
And, importantly, if the evidence contradicts a faith-based belief and you ignore the evidence on those grounds, then you are not a scientist.
E.A Here is the God that Hawking was 100% reliant on::
photobucket.com/gallery/user/Eagle_Averro/media/bWVkaWFJZDoyMzMwNjMzMQ==/?ref=1
WARNING:: This is a " Self destruct Post " destruction by Moderation marked as " No Value " and or " Off Topic " read with care!!
The only thing I've ever disagreed on when it comes to the theory of God is that anyone's claims about God are accurate. I've always accepted the possibility that something we might define as God might exist out there somewhere, I just don't believe any of the detailed descriptions so far have anything to do with reality. As soon as someone states that their concept of God as "all powerful" or "omniscient", that, to me, automatically disqualifies their argument and exposes them as someone who might as well be describing a genie in a bottle. It invite critiques to challenge those invented defining qualities of what is or isn't "divine". And it's even more ridiculous when in answer to the challenges the believers begin to come up with explanations or rules by which their fantasy must abide by like claiming that the only wish a genie can't grant is for more wishes or that your all powerful God that can do anything can't make a rock so large that he couldn't pick it up.
So if all you're looking for is agreement that something in this massively huge universe we find ourselves in with our tiny miniscule perspective and limited ability to examine it, might resemble what most humans would consider a "god", then I agree.
But if you're saying "Well, now that you've accepted that a God-like being could theoretically exist, I'd like to tell you about the Hebrew God Yahweh and his son who want you to behave a certain way for divine rewards", then we are in complete disagreement.
E.A Good!!
So are you in the mood to show me what part of that " Book Written by Man " ( As I said Before if ANY one comes across a Book Not Written By Man/Woman Get in touch with NASA and SETI ) normally called " The Bible " is against anything that YOU have pointed out?
E.A OK so what would be the " Goal The Target, the AIM " of any one that can have a status as a " god "?
I mean in ALL the SciFI that I read they all had a " Goal " at times as you stated unattainable, but still had one, as in GALACTICA, they came to find out that they where " Children of a God " that seeded them so they " Found their Origins " so please tell me more!
Read my comment as a whole too. All those sentences work together to express an idea, also. YEC's are superfluous and wasted as an example on my re: spirit, faith, science, scientists, doctors, and teachers. Thank you for sharing, nevertheless.
I would think that would be self evident as the book written by man does exactly what I said I was in disagreement with. It names, defines and attempts to describe the unproven spirit being and presents principles humans are supposed to follow in order to please said deity. It's also contradictory in its description, as early on the God described is an angry, jealous God that demands worship and condones mass murder of those he has deemed "enemies" even allowing for dashing the small children of the surrounding nations against the rocks, while later it describes God as the embodiment of love, a turn the other cheek deity who is the ultimate forgiver.
When you read science fiction/fiction, you are reading the thoughts of the author and whatever "goal" their invented deities may have is one they no doubt took some time inventing.
Galactus's "goal" or purpose was invented by Jack Kirby and Stan Lee. They gave him the job of eating planets, being a part of the cycle of life in the cosmos. He was a terrific vehicle for the authors to express their views on genocide, manifest destiny, ethics, and natural/necessary disasters and the very nature of existence.
In Battlestar Galactica you have Glen Larson's take on how humanity would cope after creating their own replacements, creating the Cylons who then organize and work to wipe out their own creators. So in that series, we are the Gods and the Cylons are our creations that force us to flee into space. I suppose if they did a show about Cylons tens of thousands of years later living and thriving on Caprica who wonder about their origins, that would possibly mirror our own experience of finding ourselves alive in a universe with no indelible and definitive instruction manual or verified explanation for our origins. I'm sure eventually the Cylons would either invent a creator to give their lives some fantasy connection, or they might accept that whether they were created by some ancient species called humans or not, it doesn't really matter if it's just hypothetical with no actual evidence, and pointless without some proven direct benefit from belief.
E.A Ok lets set the " Foundation " then so we both know what we are talking and dealing with::
According to that " Book " a Sentient Being, that existed outside and far from this Universe created a Number of other life forms that had no use on this Universe and Mater as we know it, they are named and disruptions given of those creatures, but let continue with the " foundation " After an undefined time, that Sentient Being, chose a spot, an Area a Locale to " Make a Universe " as we are told that he chose a " day " a Day that has no need to a Planetary motion that is not yet created to be defined by, not a Sun Orbit that is yet to exist, not a galactic one for that mater, but a " Devine Day " as we are told is one that has a " Beginning and an End " to a Project!
So on that Specific Day, he started to create what we are told are " Heavens Plural and Earth singular " and we are told with 100% Scientific methodology of how after an undefined time frame, he chose a " Dust particle " to terraform and we are told how that terraforming took place, and then how he " genetically modified life forms " to suit that planet, he went as any good Scientist would, from Simplest to Complex, allowing a time frame for then to establish between " evening and Morning " as said earlier a " Day " was a Beginning and an end, and Night is indeed part of a day .. and He allowed Seeds to form and to Grow, he allowed Flora and fauna to procreate and get established, with no need or concern of a " time " Frame as to him there is NO time..
And then when he as all good Scientist do " Looked and seen that it was ALL good " he made a decision to make a lifeform to be a " keeper " of this " New Creation " but unlike all of the previous Creations this one had to have a greater intelligence and with that a greater accountability. but he did not create two, but one... and that also makes Great Scientific sense, but more to that later, so he created this " Male " and gave interaction about " watching and learning from all that was created and giving names " that First Human we are told was Eager and excited and Did so, but from what I understand after a period of say about 50 Years ( My Opinion ) That Human noticed that while all the other creation was procreating, he could not because he needed a partner...
Are we in Agreement that that is the Start of the FOUNDATION so far, and so far it seem reasonable and as I said Genesis 1:1-19 is 100% Scientific!
E.A We are on OUR way down that PATH if we are allowed now,,, one step at a time!
Interesting, and different. (Smile.)
E.A Thank you, But I have not erred/deviated from the " Authors " intent of that " Book " in anything I have so far stated..
You have my attention. (Smile.)
E.A Thank You
I would prefer a Question, so as to allow DP time to think meditate and respond.
E.A To be Continued!!
Actually, I am not going to "rally" a question I do not have at the moment. I am going to ingest @10.1.22 for a while. Hmm.
No, we are not in agreement. I've read the Genesis account many many times, and I believed and tried to rationalize it for decades, but I can no longer defend it. It's beyond flawed. First the supposed creation of light and dark is moronic. "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." The earth apparently didn't exist in a spherical form before God made night and day unless you want to believe that up to that point the speed of light wasn't determined and physics didn't work the same way, where light would just bend around a planet from its point of origin until God told it not to. This is exactly what an uneducated native people might invent to explain how a day cycle was created but would never be the description coming from a being existing off earth.
Then he creates the waters and the sky, then trees and plants, and then, not until the fourth day, does he create the stars. “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,". "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.".
Besides that, it plainly says there was a "global flood" when the facts show there isn't enough water in the heavens or under the crust to cover the tallest mountains in water and there is no evidence that there has ever been a global flood. Regional flood? Sure, exactly what an ancient people might believe to be a global flood because to them their whole world was under water. But the bible is supposed to be divinely inspired by a deity that's supposed to be infallible and to know what really happened. You can't get this much wrong and still claim infallibility without attempting some serious feats of mental contortions.
So jumping from "I accept the possibility of some being existing that some people might define as God" to "The Genesis account is scientific" is not only a ridiculous leap of logic, it's a plunge from relative sanity into the Lake Baikal of madness.
When faced with what should be extremely obvious to any modern individual who has bothered to read holy books such as the Bible - that these books are simply ancient fiction - why do you suppose people continue to blindly hold them divine?
Seems to me one can easily hold a belief in an abstract creator and do so rationally (a creator entity might exist). So one need not give up belief in a higher power. Even with this option, people use all sorts of mental games to try to rationalize divinity out of the nonsense of the Bible. I have witnessed people literally attempt to argue that slavery is not always immoral rather than acknowledge (even to themselves, privately) that the Bible is not divine.
I understand why ancient people would so easily believe in a god. They had very little understanding of how reality works. Thunderstorms were a grand mystery so certainly the variety and complexity of life on the planet must have struck them as proof that there is a creator entity. But we know so much more now. There no longer is a need to blindly attribute everything unknown to 'God'. Yet, in 2018, billions continue to hold these ancient books to be the divine word of a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient god. Entirely unsupported, emotional arguments continue to be made. When faced with facts and logic, the arguments are replaced with venom and intellectual dishonesty.
Thoughts on why?
E.A Take your time, when ever you are ready!
E.A OK " Why Jump the Gun "?? why not give this discussion the same time as you would any other SciFi ,?
So tell me according to Science and Cosmology, how long would have taken for the " Dust bunnies " to accumulate to a Planetesimal, then to have " Melted and Formed SOLID mater, and then continues to accrue material to reach the size to become " Stellar " and then " Ignite and become a Sun?
I am sure you are aware that OUR Sun is a " Third Generation Star " so do you know why that NEEDS to be so for us to exist?
So then the Genesis account is 100% Accurate as " There was Darkness' " Before TWO different " Light "events took place at TWO diffident time Frames to allow out Planet to be further terraformed for the Life Modification Specifically for IT, and nowhere else!
If at anytime YOU wish to stop having this Discussion with ME, please feel free to say so, and no need to be polemic about it, many thanks!
E.A Again Why " Jump the Gun "
All Scientist will tell you that as a Stellar bodies cools, water formation will accumulate on it!
Now as to separation of " Day and Night " are you aware that some planets and lets take Venus just for the sake ot it, might have An Atmosphere so DENSE, that the Light diffusion would be evenly distributed, so that no " Clear delineation " would be visible between " Day and Night "?
So Again that is 100% Scientific, but misunderstood by so many!!
on the last part about " evening and Morning " what can you tell us about Krebs Cycle and why Plants need " Night " and how critical it is and when did SCIENCE understand that, and why did it take them so long to come to that conclusion , and what futher refinement has since been made about " "polyols," /Sugar and Energy "?
Posted the URL just in case :: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast20dec_1/
That I agree with.
Because it's so much easier to rely on emotion than it is to think logically. Critical thinking can cause migraines for some
You're more than welcome to bend over backwards and perform impressive feats of logic contortions in order to keep believing, but don't assume that anyone else is either willing or so limber as to be able to twist their reason and reality into a pretzel to fit with the Genesis account.
So again, not 100% at all, not even 50%, not even 10% scientific. A "diffused" light may give an eerie glow on the dark side of a planet, it does not in any way resemble direct exposure to a stars light. Trying to invent possible ways that Genesis might be interpreted to match reality is as dishonest as a YEC trying to rationalize the existence of fossils that appear to be millions of years old. "Yeah, but what if Satan zapped them with radiation to make them look older? Hah! So the earth might only be 6,000 years old!". No, no it can't and no it isn't.
The link returns to this article. (Smile.)
Trout Giggles, scientists, doctors, and teachers who acknowledge the Christian concept of God are not being intellectually dishonest. They have superseded their scientific discipline out of necessity, because they are called into an additional life of faith and spirituality. Religion is borne out of the community of faith and how people desire to live. Yes, the results are mixed.
Also, there is the biblical concept of being "born again." Millions of modern people in all types of professions swear and explain its occurrence in their lives. And yet, critics blow right pass these professionals' statements tone-deaf and exclaiming: "It ain't so."
Oddly, in every other area of discussion with the so-called, "intellectual dishonest," the critics can find common agreement. Spirituality is a personal journey and it could be lonely but for the millions who are on it!
This 'portion' of this discussion is too complex to actually get to the 'meat' of in a comment board; but, it needs to be interjected into the conversation 'stream' more often.
Much to say over time. . . .
Faith is not solid evidence - it is personal - as somebody on this thread who keeps this model of discussion alive has had explained ad nauseam. (Calbab retches.)
But rather than move on, and allow free diversity of thought flourish, somebody on this thread sits and pisses on everybody else's parades. It is a sickness to NT that every time God is mentioned a crowd 'pops' up to put-down the word!
I have no problem with believing scientists, medical professionals, et al, as long as they don't allow their beliefs to interfere with their work.
Faith is not based on any evidence at all, as far I can see. It's a "feeling", an emotional reaction, not a logical conclusion based on any real evidence.
I don't want to "dump" on anyone's religion until they make it personal and try to convince me I need Jesus to be a good person. You don't do that and I appreciate it.
Faith does have 'evidence' through the personal experiences (changes) in the life of each believer. It is that instance when you see a former or current friend and you observe they are changed from your remembrances of them and you ask and they tell: "God changed me." And you store up their words in your heart, because you knew how they were before. At moments like this, what reasonable person would come-back: "God did not change you, you are lying."
The person knows him or herself.
The Bible casts individual NT 'spotlights' on this one and that one who believes, is "born again" and lives differently from that point onward. They testify to who they were and who they now are. They know themselves and what they were capable of - and what they are capable of anew.
If I can believe a scientist's logic and reason when he is in the 'world,' I can believe his/her reason when s/he explains some life-changing event has occurred in another area of life.
Sadly, the critic 'pisses,' and from that day forward might engage that self-same scientist with namecalling.
Ok....but that is individual experience or "evidence". One person's life changing experience isn't going to be the life changing experience for me. If I see a friend who tells me his/her life has changed because they found God, I'll just say, that's nice and probably try and change the subject, only because I'm not interested in a sermon. I certainly won't try and convince them that it really didn't happen for them.
Of course you can. I might be able to believe the same thing. But once again that person's experience is not going to be the experience that gets me to "see the light". I think even God says we all must come to him in our own way, does he not?
You are wonderful, dear TG! I'd like to pack a lunch and join you at the fishin' hole. Love your outlook. You 'get' it. (Smile.)
That sounds like fun!
E.A If it does it must be one of those " Magical things that do not exist as TIG will tell us " :-)
See " Sugar Meteor " and then think why did NASA need to lie about Sugars and also Amino Acids ?
E.A Thank you, Bigotry is strong in evidence, as you went to a lot of trouble to explain the reason many SciFis fall short of explaining FACTS, but in this case you somehow Confuse FACTS with Humanities lack of ability to accept KNOWN Physics.
END!
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast20dec_1/
December 20, 2001: A NASA scientist has discovered sugar and several related organic compounds in two meteorites -- providing the first evidence that another fundamental building block of life on Earth might have come from outer space.
Dr. George Cooper and co-workers from the NASA Ames Research Center found the sugary compounds in two carbon-rich (or "carbonaceous") meteorites. Previously, researchers had found inside meteorites other organic, carbon-based compounds that play major roles in life on Earth, such as amino acids and carboxylic acids, but no sugars.
Above: Pass the sugar? The carbonaceous Murchison meteorite, pictured here, harbors sugar-related organic compounds. Image copyright 2001 by New England Meteoritical Services.
E.A So who would like to tell Us, the Difference between polyols and Sugar, and Base elements and Amino Acids?
I just picked up a copy of his book: Brief Answers to the Big Questions. I can't wait to dive in.