Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation

No, you don't get it. I subscribe to a definition of "see" that requires light to travel from the object in question and strike the human eye. You apparently do not. Get over it. You keep going on about the subjective internal experience of "viewing," which has no relevance to the semantic debate that I keep trying not to have.

Who cares? How is that relevant? I am not, as you seem to imagine, trying to claim that the computer is untrustworthy or something. I am simply saying that an electron micrograph, however accurate and trustworthy it might be, does not meet my definition of "seeing."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe in your ''magical'' world all that is required is a photon to bounce off the retina. There is in fact, a complex series of chemical imbalances which result in a mesh of information. It's a lot more than what you may wish for others to simply reconcile.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I clearly said that the brain must generate an imagine of it in post #53. You apparently latched onto that part and ignored the first part.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you yourself latched onto the entirity of the post used to make sense of your idiocy of what constitutes a ''viewing''.

Whatever. I've had enough.

 

I think your both blind...

do you see any electrons in the pictures???

 

"Ahh! sucks...I thought the ultimate answer is 42..."

Oh Yea of little faith.

It's only if he had said "God did exist", I would be worried.

But what do I know.

Light in, Light out.

Kind Regards,

Terry Giblin

 

168..inflation...(4x42)

 

empirical claims that aren't doable are un-sensible

 

all this is basic stuff that is not much different from optics technology that goes into cameras

it gets really complex when you start to get down to the necessary literacy levels that grant you entrance to texts

for instance

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have no idea what that means.

 

From the abstract this self creating universe sounds rather speculative...

The writers say 'may allow' whereas you make it sound like we know it is compatible.

Further we are still dealing with some kind of potentials present. The potential for something to arise out of nothing or itself. It is not universe here and this potential being something separate from this universe or the metauniverse. So we are still left with the question of why this is possible.
I also thought that self-causation was generally scoffed at in these kinds of discussions and not by the theists.

 

My goodness James, you make the computer sound unreliable.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They may indeed have a mind of their own

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(only joking of course)

 

Besides, physicists have very recently for the first time, been able to explore the structure of the atom using a beam of periodic light.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100804151355.htm

 

Uh-huh.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

its like this -

what new technologies does this new finding establish : absolutely none
what existing technologies would require revision if this new finding was proven inaccurate or wrong : absolutely none

hence

what is the value of this new finding : absolutely none

Might as well be

Stephen Hawking : God not needed to rid the world of ninjas
or
Stephen Hawking : The world's most important vampires not required to discuss eternity

nb: terming it a "finding" is probably a bit magnanimous

 

A statement is either logical or illogical.
Logic can't be stupid, only people can be stupid, or dogs maybe.

"Stupid logic" is an example of a transferred epithet.
Other examples:

"restless night" — The night was not restless, but the person who was awake through it was.
"happy morning" — Mornings have no feelings, but the people who are awake through them do.
"female prison" — Prisons do not have genders, but the people who are inside them do.
"condemned cell" — It is not the cell that is condemned, but the person who is inside it.
"careless error" — The error is not careless, but the person who commits it is.
"distracted driving" — The driving is not distracted, but the person doing it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypallage

 

"Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating the newly formed heavy elements."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

do stars just get too heavy and explode or do they suck in something else big reach critical mass then explode... what happens to a nuke in space?

 

It seems to me that any claim that something was not necessary would be supported by showing all that was necessary and why this list can be asserted with confidence is the complete list.

I haven't heard we know all that was necessary to get the universe going. I would think there would be quite a bit of fanfare about this.