Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

a reply to: TzarChasm

I think if you start with the word "In" and move on from there for "what is confusing them"

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

I think if you start with the word "In" and move on from there for "what is confusing them"

The real mystery is how this thread endured for 70 pages.

a reply to: TzarChasm

The Grand Design is a popular-science book written by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow and published by Bantam Books in 2010.

The book examines the history of scientific knowledge about the universe and explains 11 dimension M-theory. The authors of the book point out that a Unified Field Theory (a theory, based on an early model of the universe, proposed by Albert Einstein and other physicists) may not exist.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...(book)

www.hawking.org.uk...

Hawking's interpretation of M theory led him to make this statement. M Theory unifies all known theories of String theory. The wiki link above gives a breakdown of what M theory encompasses.

This gets very deep when it comes to gravity and quantum gravity. You would have to read the book and also understand the reference material.

If Mr. emdc is interested in M theory and the like, he should probably put forth his theories on the Science and Technology board, although I don't wish that on anyone!

My suggestion is skip it. This is way above emdc's pay grade and mine!

Excerpt from the book (Chapter 1, page 4):

“We will describe how M-theory may offer answers to the question of creation. According to M theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law. They are a prediction of science.Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states at later times, that is, at times like the present, long after their creation. Most of these states will be quite unlike the universe we observe and quite unsuitable for the existence of any form of life. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Thus our presence selects out from this vast array only those universes that are compatible with our existence. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation. To understand the universe at the deepest level, we need to know not only how the universe behaves, but why”


Here's a link to the PDF of the complete book: file:///C:/Users/Owner/Desktop/stephen_hawking_the_grand_design.pdf

I don't know if you can download it if you're not a member. If not, I would be happy to send it under separate cover (I don't think we can upload PDFs here?)

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

What about it indeed? As has been indicated, the book explains it, and as I said, it refutes "god did it" as an excuse.

You can not use a popular science (as in pop sci) book, written for the masses as a primary source. Where are those peer reviewed journals? We are waiting.

Hahaha...pop sci, yep - one of my favorite reading journals. Gotta keep up with the latest ya know.

Back to Prof. Hawkings, I take it then that you fully accept and believe his concluding statement. And since that you're fully versed on the subject and in what he said namely:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

Tell me then, what created gravity if there was nothing to begin with?

Surely gravity in not nothing but is quantifiable, it's something - so where did gravity came from then when there was nothing?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

I think if you start with the word "In" and move on from there for "what is confusing them"

The real mystery is how this thread endured for 70 pages.

cuz - it's a fascinating subject.

a reply to: edmc^2

What I believe (and as I linked) is that he has stated that he is not of the belief that a supreme being did not create the universe.

As for the rest, he is a subject matter expert in that, thus I have no reason to doubt him. After all, he has been published in peer reviewed journals. Which if you don't understand means other scientists have tested and validated his conclusions based upon his data. I've been peer reviewed in my publications, and they do indeed test what you did.

You are now resorting to being petulant. I don't know what "created gravity", I leave that to the physicists to work out. Just like they leave the designing and manufacture of Pharmaceuticals to Chemists like myself.

Run along. *pat pat*

a reply to: TerryDon79
An apple is called an apple "because that's what we called it".

Doesn't make the existence of apples any less of a reality just because humans decided to attach words as descriptions of realities for the purpose of making rational conversation and communication a possibility.

In a rational honest conversation, one plus one is two. In a philosophical debate with irrational illogical and unreasonable people, one plus one is sometimes not two, often supported by some elaborate philosophizing and twisting what is said. Like the guy who was talking about 2 flocks but counting the individual sheep in the thread about knowledge on the green philosophy forum (or was it the thread about truth in the yellow religion forum?). He claimed that 1+1=25. Yep, people are so reasonable on ATS....not.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

What I believe (and as I linked) is that he has stated that he is not of the belief that a supreme being did not create the universe.

As for the rest, he is a subject matter expert in that, thus I have no reason to doubt him. After all, he has been published in peer reviewed journals. Which if you don't understand means other scientists have tested and validated his conclusions based upon his data. I've been peer reviewed in my publications, and they do indeed test what you did.

You are now resorting to being petulant. I don't know what "created gravity", I leave that to the physicists to work out. Just like they leave the designing and manufacture of Pharmaceuticals to Chemists like myself.

Run along. *pat pat*

This is one of the things I find fascinating - just because something was said by a scientist, people are easily persuaded to accept it as scientific. They become zombie-like followers without questioning anything. They don't dare even question if such statement is philosophical in nature or not or metaphysics instead of actual physics or a merging of different disciplines.

In any case, the answer is in the quoted statement - what CREATED gravity.

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

Did you see it?

If not, here it is: "Because there is a law such as gravity," the universe can and will create itself from nothing,".

In other words, Prof. Hawkings was either assuming or was totally convinced that gravity was the product of "a law".

But what is a law or for that matter "a law of gravity"? Furthermore, where did this "law" come from? What or who put it together?

Care to gander?

Rest of the quote:




Run along. *pat pat*

a reply to: whereislogic

Well done showing people that you can do everything to avoid a topic. Every single thread you're in you never address a thing. It's a joke.

a reply to: edmc^2

A flaw in your logic is assuming the universe was created. It's entirely possible it has always existed, therefore not needing a creator.

originally posted by: edmc^2


In any case, the answer is in the quoted statement - what CREATED gravity.

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

Did you see it?

If not, here it is: "Because there is a law such as gravity," the universe can and will create itself from nothing,".

In other words, Prof. Hawkings was either assuming or was totally convinced that gravity was the product of "a law".

This statement makes it appear you've got no idea what a Scientific Law actually is or what purpose it serves. Hawking wasn't implying that gravity is the "product" of a law as you say. The Law is a human construct, a mathematical descriptor. In fact, Hawking was actually implying that the Universe is the result of gravity and how it acts. See, despite the constant repetition of "Something from Nothing" from your side of the table, the Universe wasn't sprung from nothingness. The singularity prior to expansion, already contained the entire mass of our current universe. It was Gravity that bound it in an infinitely dense singularity. Everything that exists today, all the energy, all the matter, existed in some form BEFORE the Big Bang occurred. There never was NOTHING. There has always been SOMETHING. .

But what is a law or for that matter "a law of gravity"? Furthermore, where did this "law" come from? What or who put it together?

What a Scientific Law is, is an explanation of WHY a specific phenomena occurs the exact same way, every single time the phenomena is recorded. Typically, though not always, Scientific Laws are described by a mathematical equation. This is the case with Newton's Universal Law of Gravity. Scientific Laws are equally subject to change and adjustment as Scientific Theories are if new data presents itself. Scientific Laws also, as many people seem confused into believing, do not supersede Scientific Theories. They describe different aspects of the physical reality we inhabit. In the simplest explanation, as I mention above, a Law describes WHY something occurs whereas as Theory describes HOW something occurs.


Where did this Law come from and who put it together? Sir Isaac Newton published it in 1687. It has since been superseded by General Relativity in terms of precision but Newton's Universal Law is still used. GR is used when extreme precision is required, when dealing with very strong gravitational fields (black holes, neutron stars, binary systems for example) or closely orbiting bodies such as Sol and Mercury.

It wasn't put together or "created" by some supernatural entity that is immeasurable and unobservable, it is simply a mathematical description of our perspective of the universe from Earth and how bodies interact with one another on a grand scale.

a reply to: TerryDon79
You're the one who brought up:

It's called code because that's what we called it.

I responded directly to you and your (and others) underlying philosophical way of thinking that led to you wanting to point that out; the argument that you didn't spell out because you were too busy with your usual routine of false accusations to avoid acknowledging a reality/fact (which could possibly be phrased as avoiding a topic), followed by some psychological projection to pretend I wasn't responding to you and staying on the topic you chose to say something about. Here's your false accusation and picture painting:

It's only the people who don't understand science that keep up this false argument.

You didn't even articulate why we should consider that "it's called code because that's what we called it". Duh, how is that even a significant statement or "address a thing" in the comment you were responding to or demonstrate someone was using a "false argument" because of "people who don't understand science"?

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
...
The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Source: the page before the article in my sig and that page itself

a reply to: whereislogic

It's a false argument because that's what it is. You really need to start learning the meanings of words when out with other words.

originally posted by: cooperton
It is not an analogy. It is called code for a reason. Do you have a better word that describes its function?

originally posted by: Noinden
DNA is more than 4 or 5 (if you include Uracil) code. modifications such as methylation and about 100 other changes, also make it further from "code" than you could imagine.

cooperton:

How does this make it farther from code?

Notice that after using the word "code" to describe DNA (with poor english grammar or syntax, not sure what "4 or 5 code" means, is he referring to quaternary and quinary code? Btw, Uracil is not present in DNA, both DNA and RNA as it's used in living organisms and when it's functional regarding the operations of life are quaternary codes); he's doing the Michael Shermer thing (starting at 8:21, the patterns are a sad thing to notice, let's make the lines between fact and fiction, truths and falsehoods, realities and myths&fancy storytelling more blurry; as if a person can't even find out the truth of a matter, what is correct, without error/certain/factual/conclusive/absolute):

Such as the fact that DNA as it is found in the genomes of living organisms IS a code. To be more detailed, a genetic code in which the information required to build all the operational systems and machinery in living organisms is stored and processed chemically rather than digitally as in computers. Making the phrase "digital code" an analogy for the DNA as it is found in the genomes of living organisms. An extremely appropiate one for those willing to think and talk about this subject honestly, rationally and reasonably (pardon the repetition of those words but it's just so lacking in many people here that it's hard to ignore or talk past).
Here are some more examples of analogies or videos to test your evaluation skills whether the analogy is appropiate or not:

And this video was not meant to present an analogy but was meant to consider an aspect of cooperative functionality and/or coordination technology.

Who Designed It First?

a reply to: whereislogic

Oh shock. You linked to a cult at the end of your reply. They must have some serious mental control over you.

a reply to: whereislogic

Sarcasm/oh look spell flames and videos all arguments I made are null and voidsarcasm

I know that Uracil is not included in DNA however RNA is part of the genetic process. DNA and RNA work hand in hand. Thus one must consider that different nucleic acid as well in discussions.

Seriously you need to not consider videos as constituting proof.

The rest of your post? Gobbley gook.

a reply to: edmc^2

No you are mistaken. As a fellow scientist I trust that his papers have been peer reveiwed just as mine have been. As such his area of expertise is something ge can talk too. This was his area of expertise. No need to get all militant it shows your jealousy regarding scientists.

You clearly dont understand laws, theories, or hypotheses in the sciences either.

So again you can't imply God here either.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

I think if you start with the word "In" and move on from there for "what is confusing them"

The real mystery is how this thread endured for 70 pages.

The OP knows what he's doing. He has resurrected this thread 4 or 5 times now. Each time he repeats the same jargon and rhetoric, gets debunked, then disappears just long enough to make folks forget that they already debunked his nonsense multiple times. This thread has been following this circular pattern for almost a year now with no logic and no end in sight.

originally posted by: whereislogic
In a rational honest conversation, one plus one is two. In a philosophical debate with irrational illogical and unreasonable people, one plus one is sometimes not two, often supported by some elaborate philosophizing and twisting what is said. Like the guy who was talking about 2 flocks but counting the individual sheep in the thread about knowledge on the green philosophy forum (or was it the thread about truth in the yellow religion forum?). He claimed that 1+1=25. Yep, people are so reasonable on ATS....not.

For once, I agree with you 100%. I can't stand when people use math as a metaphor for things that can't be quantified and argue mostly with semantics. Maybe we should grab a beer before it's too late and you post again.