|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 10, 2010 12:59:23 GMT 1
YOU said that physicists should not speculate on the origin of matter, which is in effect trying to say to cosmologists and theoretical particle physicists -- you are not allowed to think about this.
So, because not 100% of physicists or cosmologists are atheists doesn't change the fact that the 'spontaneous generation of matter' that you keep misunderstanding and misrepresenting is actually totally standard physics. Okay, quantum cosmology not so well-established, but the fact that stuff can spontaneously appear owt of nowt is hardly news to any physicist, whatever their religious beliefs or lack of them.
So, is that really the best you can do (yet again)...............
It is the job of any decent scientists to speculate, whether that be about the origin of life, or the origin of the universe.
As I suspected, you obviously know no physics. The spontaneous appearance of stuff is a cornerstone of modern quantum theory, whose effects can be observed. Hence going one step further, and postulating that perhaps the entire universe can do the same trick, is, unlike your god, based on evidence.
If you still think there is no difference, then you'll be even more stupid that I suspected you were................
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 10, 2010 13:39:26 GMT 1
I am sorry, but as you are lapsing into abuse, I will have to come strong upon you (hopefully without the necessity for the abuse that actually weakens your argument considerably)
Really, the kind of arrogance you display gets science a bad name. You seem to be saying that because (you maintain) matter is 'spontaneously generated' that that is the answer, and because of that incredibly feeble statement that some physicists are able to pronounce that God is not necessary! That is a quite unbelievable mixture of arrogance and blindness, as no-one, and I repeat, no-one has the slightest idea how matter or energy is created. To say it is created 'spontaneously' tells us nothing 'scientific' at all. You do not even bother defining what you mean by spontaneous creation. So that is the 'scientific' answer to the great mystery of creation? It's all 'spontaneous' Pathetically laughable!
That is not science It is bewildered people blathering, unable to explain what they observe!
Science has stopped and they are talking metaphysics.
To move from that incredibly weak position to pontificate on God 'being unnecessary' is unbelievably feeble
You may consider me stupid and so be it. In fact I am a well educated ,intelligent and curious observer of science. I am not a scientist, and I do not undertand some of the intricacies of modern science, but I can recognise blather when I seen and hear it.
I can see and recognise the frustration of some that really have no idea of how to communicate their ideas, and so lapse into abuse.
I am reminded of Feynman who said that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you have got it all wrong.
In other words modern physicists are struggling in a darkened room are in no position to judge whether God is necessary
Not really your professional province is it, the necessity for God?
Do you really imagine that physicists of the stature of Professor Stannard agree with your weak illogical conclusions on the non-neccessity of God?.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 10, 2010 15:54:41 GMT 1
[snip]It is already abundantly clear that you know very little about science, and even less about quantum theory. Which I'm afraid is even more strongly indicated by your (mis)use of the Feynman quotation.
Even if we don't 'understand' quantum theory in the sense that some want to take 'understand' to mean (i.e., in some intuitive, or commonsense way), we certainly understand quantum theory in a scientific and mathematical sense, in that it is the most precisely tested of ANY theory in physics, and the theory is correct. So, lets dump this anthropomorphic definition of understanding, and settle for correct predictions.
And if we apply the same theory to the universe, then..........
And now the name a supposedly famous physicist who believes in god game. No more impressive as a supposed argument than the name a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution game.............
And shows that you STILL haven't grasped the distinction between disproof and necessity.
The usual philosopher tactics, I'm afraid, or at least, the usual non-arguments of someone who knows what conclusion they want to reach before they start.
you'd have to go and learn a lot more science before you were ready to actually debate the scientific merits of this hypothesis, so I suggest you go and do that, rather than wasting our time on here.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 10, 2010 16:05:12 GMT 1
naymissus, to propose that matter and energy just somehow spontaneously arose from no cause suits some physicists' book because that way they are saved from admitting they have no idea as to the origins of the universe. In other words, it's a 'cop-out.'
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 10, 2010 16:06:41 GMT 1
naymissus, to propose that matter and energy just somehow spontaneously arose from no cause suits some physicists' book because that way they are saved from admitting they have no idea as to the origins of the universe. In other words, it's a 'cop-out.' Precisely
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 10, 2010 16:13:32 GMT 1
Utter twaddle. It is already abundantly clear that you know very little about science, and even less about quantum theory. Which I'm afraid is even more strongly indicated by your (mis)use of the Feynman quotation. Even if we don't 'understand' quantum theory in the sense that some want to take 'understand' to mean (i.e., in some intuitive, or commonsense way), we certainly understand quantum theory in a scientific and mathematical sense, in that it is the most precisely tested of ANY theory in physics, and the theory is correct. So, lets dump this anthropomorphic definition of understanding, and settle for correct predictions. And if we apply the same theory to the universe, then.......... And now the name a supposedly famous physicist who believes in god game. No more impressive as a supposed argument than the name a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution game............. And shows that you STILL haven't grasped the distinction between disproof and necessity. The usual troll tactics, I'm afraid, or at least, the usual non-arguments of someone who knows what conclusion they want to reach before they start. you'd have to go and learn a lot more science before you were ready to actually debate the scientific merits of this hypothesis, so I suggest you go and do that, rather than wasting our time on here. You have a fine turn of abuse Doen't make up for thee weak argument unfortunately I am not criticising your science I am not competent to do that I am criticising the vapid conclusion from extremely weak 'evidence' that 'God is not necessary' Not very articulate in English are you? I supose you are very good at mathematics, but unfortunately I would be unable to follow your mathematial argument Still I suppose abuse is a good substitute. Few things pee me off more than a physicist who cannot explain himself to an intelligent audience Physicist Heal Thyself! Are you a professor of physics I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 11, 2010 12:41:19 GMT 1
Yes, but it is not yet clear whether the universe is infinite. If, in fact, the universe is infinite then it is a certainty that we should exist. However, that doesn't mean that the universe is acausal.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 11, 2010 12:44:47 GMT 1
The scientific method is based on axiomatic systems. What a silly mistake to make.
|
|
|
Post by johnbee on Sept 11, 2010 21:09:42 GMT 1
< In other words modern physicists are struggling in a darkened room are in no position to judge whether God is necessary >
It is illogical to make an abusive posting, claim that you know little about science and then say that. Hawking was making a point and it is not arguing to merely reply with something about no position to judge.
I will explain something if I may:
Years ago, Aristotle (350 BC) reasoned that heavy things fall faster than light things. It took 2000 years for someone to think of trying it out for themselves. Galileo showed that it was an incorrect assumption.
Galileo also showed conclusively that the Earth as not the centre of the universe: he was put under house arrest for the rest of his life for that bby the religious believers, who refused to understand his argument and instead just abused him.
These days of course, making observations and doping experiments is recognised as the best way of finding things out. Thinking does not do the trick.
It was thought that there must be a God because how does the moon stay up in the air? Isaac Newton explained how gravity can lead to orbiting, thus showing that God was not necessary to explain why the moon stays up.
It was thought impossible for something to come out of nothing, so there must be a God. Since we know that things arise out of nothing all the time, we know that God is not necessary to explain it.
Now, Hawking is saying that the universe's existence can be explained well enough to render obsolete the argument that 'there must be a God because the universe exists'.
None of these discoveries has anything at all to do with whether God exists, just about the nonsense talked by people who are terrified of knowledge interfering with their beliefs since childhood.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 12, 2010 8:16:49 GMT 1
It was thought impossible for something to come out of nothing, so there must be a God. Since we know that things arise out of nothing all the time, we know that God is not necessary to explain it. Have you considered the logic of this statement? How do things arise out of nothing at all (if indeed that is the case)? Is it magic? Is it scientifically explainable? Can scientist, with their massive knowledge, now create matter from nothing at all? We certainly do not know that God is not necessary to explain this , simply because we have no explanation. None of these discoveries has anything at all to do with whether God exists, just about the nonsense talked by people who are terrified of knowledge interfering with their beliefs since childhood. I agree with you that recent discoveries have nothing to do with whether God exists That is my point Why, then did Hawking invoke God? To sell his book presumably. Aren't you being a tad abusive about Christians?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 12, 2010 10:16:49 GMT 1
Seems to me that since we are no way near having an explanation of what "causes" the universe no-one is any position to rule out God. So why are the footsoldiers of rationalism so concerned with "disproving" God? So long as the equations work and some sort of useful knowledge (whatever it is) is advanced by QT, sod God, say I ! It is the people who are preoccupied with the disproof of "God" who need to explain themselves. God is an irrelevance to scientific endeavour as I understand it.
Hawking is just playing to the gallery - the purportedly "rational" audience that used to flood the now blessedly defunct BBC Science Board with anti-God stuff in opposition to naive "creationism". It is not NECESSARY to invoke GOD, one way the other, in scientific "explanations" of stuff. So why do it? To sell books, obviously.
Incidentally, I once asked a Mexican physicist housemate his opinion of Stephen Hawking since he is the pet scientist and media darling of the UK. He just dismissed him. He said the rest of the physics world did not take Hawking seriously. So I guess this concern with Hawking is just a British thing - the big fish in our little pond. Just as Hawking "denies" the necessity God, the rest of science "denies" the necessity of Hawking.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 12, 2010 11:52:51 GMT 1
As an atheist you are speaking very seinsibly MR. Well done! I have smited you to increase your street-cred.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 12, 2010 12:59:05 GMT 1
Not smitten, then?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 12, 2010 13:14:31 GMT 1
I was smitten by you the first time I 'met' you my dear. I have smited you again. Dunno grammatically -where's Aqua?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 12, 2010 17:21:43 GMT 1
I know that this topic has probably run its course with no-one convinced by the other and that the barricades still up with rocks being hurled over, But I could not resist, (in a priggish sort of way), including this review oif the Hawking book by one Alexander Waugh in this week's Spectator (my [self-satisfied] emphases):
Stephen Hawking has written a short, occasionally facetious, but generally reliable and informative history of classical and quantum mechanics. That is all. That he has adverted to it as an answer to the ultimate question of life is both annoying and inaccurate, but no doubt commercially sensible. Richard Feynman, the American physicist on whose work Hawking bases much of his own theory, wrote: ‘I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.’ Nothing has changed since Feynman’s death in 1988, and although Hawking may have a far deeper knowledge of quantum mechanics than anyone else on this planet, he still doesn’t understand it. With a little less chutzpah he might also have realised that things of which we cannot see the bottom are not necessarily profound.
|
|