Stephen Hawking tackles Creation on 'Curiosity' - New Discovery Channel Program

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

It's not my fault if people get brittle.

Literally or figuratively? If you mean literally, I'd assume that some kind of petrification was involved. Are you sure you're not a basilisk or a gorgon? Because then it might be your fault. If you mean figuratively, I don't see anyone getting brittle here.

And why I can't use my own form of prejudice? Is it because I'm a believer? I see non-believers doing this stuff all day long to those who believe in God, yet no one says anything about it, you probably sit back and laugh at those remarks. Yet soon as a believer starts to strike back then all of sudden he is prejudice or rude. Give me a break/

"They did it to me, so I'm going to do it back." Yes, that's very godly of you. And I'm sure that no one who believes in God has ever acted in a hostile way toward those who don't share that belief.

Nope. Not a single one.

Playing the martyr and using that as an excuse to exact some kind of petty revenge. Very upright and honest. Your God must be proud of you.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker


I'm not saying man won't make new discoveries or even travel through space. But again, we are talking about creating a universe. The only way it could ever be proven with 100% certainty would be to create a device which could do such a thing and then somehow go outside of our universe in order to create another.

What if they create something by which they can view the past? Right now that seems impossible, but who knows what breakthroughs they will have in the future?

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Poorly constructed analogy is poor. We can observe movies being produced. Let me know the next time you observe a universe being produced so we can both watch and you can point out God sitting in the director's chair.

As you request. A baby is a 50 trillion celled universe. All the information needed to create this from two nearly invisible cells is contained in the essence of the sperm and egg. You can also go outside and watch an acorn turn into a 75 oak if you are patient enough to watch it for 10 years. None of our machines can match this:

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
None of our machines can match this:

Not yet.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

It's there, you just can't see it. Does that sound familiar? Science says it all the time.

More ignorance of how science works. Science says, "You can't see it, but it's there... here's the evidence for it."

In this case I would take all belief systems into consideration. Every culture has there own version but I think it is safe to say all of the evidence when gathered up from each story would be in the favor of some kind of Supreme Being as the Creator of all things. People would have to figure out on there own which god they want to serve, I wouldn't force that anyone.

So a popular story must be the right one. Interesting logic.

reply to post by iterationzero


I know more than you think. If I wanted to write a science paper on the matter I could, but I have no desire to because it is pointless. Again, were talking about the creation of the universe. Where are the hard core facts that the Big Bang is the real answer? Just face it, science does not know how the universe was created. I'm not saying people should stop looking for answers or studying space. But to be teaching this like it's the Gospel of Humanity is going a little over board.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


You wrote:

["If what your saying is true then we need to put both "The Big Bang" and "Evolution" theory's in the religion category, because they are just fairy tales."]

Science operates self-defined with sets of parameters, amongst which one is 'facts'. This differs from 'faith', which simply accept a subjective opinion without further ado.

You can dispute this distinction at the functional level and instead go to philosophy, where you from a bird-eyes perspective (in socalled epistemology = How do we know, what we know?) take an overall view on knowledge/truth/reality-seeking.

From that position it COULD be claimed, that ALL methods are equal (e.g. that science is a 'fairytale' just as religion mostly is), but this would eventually lead to nonsense. In one method the moon IS made of green cheese; in another method that the flying spaghetti monster is THE 'god'; in a third it can be 'proved', that gravity doesn't exist in cosmos; in a fourth the method of real science really is functional for describing cosmos etc.

It sounds attractive, if you want to make semantic gymnastics, but in reality I would like to meet a person, who could follow such abstract speculations to their ultimate conclusion and e.g. try to ignore gravity.

It's better to stay with the functional distinctions between facts and faith. But should you feel an urge to try your hand at philosophy......no-one is stopping you.

The only thing I personally ask is: Call things by their proper names, use them as they are self-defined to be used and stop believing, that language is bigger than reality, so you can TALK existence into fitting with your speculations.

I apologize for this excursion into philosophy, but you present a vague and unfocused position without any real foundation at all.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

I don't need another evidence to link the Bible to what it claims. Science accomplishes this for us. Incredulity will get you nowhere in the conversation yet again.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

Once more rephrasing your almost identical I-have-only-one-thread, and once more repeating the same pseudo-science claims, which you apparantly are unable to substantiate, when it comes to the point.

You need to validate your postulates. In real science this is not done through semantics.

Originally posted by bogomil
It's better to stay with the functional distinctions between facts and faith. But should you feel an urge to try your hand at philosophy......no-one is stopping you.

That's the problem, your philosophy blinds you from real logic when it comes to creation. However, I agree with you about fact and faith. It's takes alot more faith to believe the universe was created by the Big Bang then it does anything else. I'm mean seriously, do you really believe that any kind of living cell could have survived a blast of that magnitude? If so, explain how such a thing would be possible.

I'll stick with the idea that it was spoken into existence, sounds alot safer .

Not only what you say here, but "spoken into existence" indicates a language. We already know that the language of DNA is in an impossible cipher with three million unique letters to its alphabet. When God says that His Word (Son/Logos) spoke it into existence, He seems to suggest that the language was the wave we notice in things like particle physics and the duality of light. DNA is a material manifestation of this programming language. The quantum world is a beautiful example of streaming information creating the form we see all around us. Good thoughts. DNA is amazing. This video shows only a fraction of what is actually there in the programmed process.

Bio-mechanical robotic manufacturing. DESIGN!

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil
It's better to stay with the functional distinctions between facts and faith. But should you feel an urge to try your hand at philosophy......no-one is stopping you.

That's the problem, your philosophy blinds you from real logic when it comes to creation. However, I agree with you about fact and faith. It's takes alot more faith to believe the universe was created by the Big Bang then it does anything else. I'm mean seriously, do you really believe that any kind of living cell could have survived a blast of that magnitude? If so, explain how such a thing would be possible.

I'll stick with the idea that it was spoken into existence, sounds alot safer

.

edit on 2-8-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


You wrote:

["That's the problem, your philosophy blinds you from real logic when it comes to creation."]

It's not really a problem..... it's not MY philosophy, but an autonomous system independent of me.........real logic is actually a subset of this philosophy (quite clearly defined)........and the scientific theories concerning creation aren't directly created through logic, but through the use of scientific procedure (of which logic is a part).

But please present your suggestion of an alternative 'real logic'-method in this context.

Quote: ["However, I agree with you about fact and faith."]

As a functional distinction to use as a reference-point? Why do you then claim:

Quote: ["If what your saying is true then we need to put both "The Big Bang" and "Evolution" theory's in the religion category, because they are just fairy tales."]

Is it because you are unaware of the 'nuances' of truth in scientific procedure; from ideas, to working hypotheses, to hypotheses, to theories, to undisputed theories. Science doesn't work in the black/white absolutism of theism.

Quote: ["It's takes alot more faith to believe the universe was created by the Big Bang then it does anything else......"]

Are you familiar with the many facets of the theory and the steps leading to this theory? Where in the overall reasoning-chain does the necessity of faith become obvious?

Quote continued: ["..........I'm mean seriously, do you really believe that any kind of living cell could have survived a blast of that magnitude?"]

Maybe I misunderstand you, but I have never heard of ANY scientific theory, where living cells are a part of the Big Bang scenario. Could I have some references?

Quote: ["If so, explain how such a thing would be possible."]

I can't explain a non-existing scientific theory.

Quote: ["I'll stick with the idea that it was spoken into existence, sounds alot safer"]

Which clearly falls in the 'faith' category, and where both Brahma, Oden and the flying spaghetti monster can be candidates as the 'speaker'.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
It's takes alot more faith to believe the universe was created by the Big Bang then it does anything else. I'm mean seriously, do you really believe that any kind of living cell could have survived a blast of that magnitude? If so, explain how such a thing would be possible.

That's hilarious.

Please understand the theories of Abiogenesis and Big Bang before making claims about them. No one believes that life existed before the big bang, and survived it.

Are you serious, or being satirical of the typical creationists attacks on sciences they don't understand?

Plato's cave is a good metaphor here. We are blind men describing fire. The best and clearest evidence we have for our origin is Genesis 1-3. The best evidence this is true are the first three verses. As I state in the OP, all the basics of all physics are tied up in the Bible. We are 'in' and image. Nothing else describes energy in the form of information and light from consciousness as early as the Bible makes the claim. Science is the Johnny-come-lately on the topic. Science would not dare add consciousness as preexisting matter. Sorry to say, the Bible has all its bases covered in totality. This makes it the leading voice for all other discoveries. Until science catches up and includes the Holy Spirit (Consciousness) into its equation, it will fail with theory. What it needs to do is source the facts.

No other religious book can come close to the facts in the Bible. All truth, all virtue, all science and all from the lowliest of authors to the highest kings of the earth. Follow it through history and you see every historical claim unearthed daily. From the names of ancient kings to the most subtle parts of science and philosophy. You can only fault it for rounding pi to 3.

If you need more evidence than this, you are going to be disappointed. Apart form getting past the flaming sword of Genesis 3, you are blinded from the reward of the truth. Science will continue to allow the tree of life to slip from its sight as long as the sword is there to block its blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Preexistence of Consciousness).

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
Science does not claim to know the origins of the universe, or the origins of life.

If what your saying is true then we need to put both "The Big Bang" and "Evolution" theory's in the religion category, because they are just fairy tales.

Are not both of these apart of science with their own ideas of how things came into being?

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

I'm mean seriously, do you really believe that any kind of living cell could have survived a blast of that magnitude? If so, explain how such a thing would be possible.

Sounds like a new theory to me. Never heard of that.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

I know more than you think.

I have yet to see evidence of that.

If I wanted to write a science paper on the matter I could, but I have no desire to because it is pointless.

Idle boast followed by a cop-out.

Again, were talking about the creation of the universe. Where are the hard core facts that the Big Bang is the real answer?

You claimed there was no evidence, I showed that you were wrong. Maybe you should take stock of what you think you know.

Just face it, science does not know how the universe was created.

With the absolute certainty that you require? No. But based on the data we have, which you've already shown your ignorance of, we can develop working hypotheses of how it was created. We can then test those hypotheses against data that we continue to gather. If the data agree with the predictions, then the model is supported. If the data doesn't agree with predictions, either the standing theory is completely overturned if there are enough problems with reconciling the data with the model or the standing theory is refined. This is science.

I'm not saying people should stop looking for answers or studying space.

That's exactly the kind of mentality you reinforce by making the claim that the answers can never be known as you did earlier.

But to be teaching this like it's the Gospel of Humanity is going a little over board.

I fail to see where it's being taught like a gospel.

I've been reading your comments and you are correct and incorrect. This is the case with all of us. Paradox is only resolved in 3 dimensions. We need the third excluded middle to see the other two paradoxes resolved as both true.

If we could enter into the movie Avatar and do the science behind what makes the characters 3D, we would be examining the 1D energy and light trying to figure it all out. Our science would fail us without seeing the camera that originally projected the light from a distance and the mainframe computer crunching all the numbers. At best, we would be looking at the 2D screen arguing over which dimension the light originated. You are correct/incorrect as much as the theory of the Big Bang trying to locate the essence of the first projection. Apart from understanding the logic, storage, and engineering behind the projection, the rest lacks the necessary perspective.

Apart form what the Bible tells us, we would have no vehicle to merge the perspective science tries to reveal. The image idea from our current metaphor of virtual created reality is the only thing we can use to bring a basic understanding of what the Bible said thousands of years ago. As a matter of fact, Buddha and Confucius knew the answer as well. Now you have your 3D proof. The Bible, Confucius, Buddha, Tao Ta Ching, and science all tell the same story. As an added bonus, so does our own creations, revealing another truth: We can create like the one who made us in His image.

The toroidal vortex of space and time can only appear as a illusion until we see with our minds and not just our eyes. Once we wrap our minds around toroidal vortex mathematics, we are simply trying to approach the quantum chaos with the wrong equations and metaphors. Preexisting consciousness is a key fundamental for our perspective to clearly inquire into the nature of this conundrum. The final solution will be simplicity and beauty from the mind of conscious information. Its only a matter of time before we realize this.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
reply to post by iterationzero

 

I know more than you think. If I wanted to write a science paper on the matter I could, but I have no desire to because it is pointless. Again, were talking about the creation of the universe. Where are the hard core facts that the Big Bang is the real answer? Just face it, science does not know how the universe was created. I'm not saying people should stop looking for answers or studying space. But to be teaching this like it's the Gospel of Humanity is going a little over board.

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
It's takes alot more faith to believe the universe was created by the Big Bang then it does anything else. I'm mean seriously, do you really believe that any kind of living cell could have survived a blast of that magnitude? If so, explain how such a thing would be possible.

That's hilarious.

Please understand the theories of Abiogenesis and Big Bang before making claims about them. No one believes that life existed before the big bang, and survived it.

Are you serious, or being satirical of the typical creationists attacks on sciences they don't understand?

Come on you guys, if you believe that the Big Bang is true then you have to believe that life also came from it. It's not that complicated. Or is it?

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker
It's takes alot more faith to believe the universe was created by the Big Bang then it does anything else. I'm mean seriously, do you really believe that any kind of living cell could have survived a blast of that magnitude? If so, explain how such a thing would be possible.

That's hilarious.

Please understand the theories of Abiogenesis and Big Bang before making claims about them. No one believes that life existed before the big bang, and survived it.

Are you serious, or being satirical of the typical creationists attacks on sciences they don't understand?

Come on you guys, if you believe that the Big Bang is true then you have to believe that life also came from it. It's not that complicated. Or is it?

edit on 2-8-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

I'll say it again, "If then statements which contain paradox must be unified by a third perspective. Science has this third perspective but refuses to recognize it. Apart from using the truth of preexisting consciousness, it is impossible to see consciousness as anything but an accident. It exists and therefore has always been since it reflects in many directions. Nothing abstract can be real apart from its reflection in the concrete world. The reflection necessitates the preexistence of what is reflected.

If you find a mirror somewhere reflecting another mirror apart from the second mirrors presence, then you can make the claim that what is seen is new. Nothing reflected can be new if it has an abstract and concrete reality somewhere else. Give me one example to contradict what I say. New existence can only be unique to itself.

Consciousness is found in matter. Matter is found without consciousness, but not apart from it. Consciousness has always existed or it could not be reflected on itself. In other words, consciousness apart form its reflection is not aware, voiding its definition in abstract.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Not only what you say here, but "spoken into existence" indicates a language. We already know that the language of DNA is in an impossible cipher with three million unique letters to its alphabet. When God says that His Word (Son/Logos) spoke it into existence, He seems to suggest that the language was the wave we notice in things like particle physics and the duality of light. DNA is a material manifestation of this programming language. The quantum world is a beautiful example of streaming information creating the form we see all around us. Good thoughts. DNA is amazing. This video shows only a fraction of what is actually there in the programmed process.

Bio-mechanical robotic manufacturing. DESIGN!

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by bogomil
It's better to stay with the functional distinctions between facts and faith. But should you feel an urge to try your hand at philosophy......no-one is stopping you.

That's the problem, your philosophy blinds you from real logic when it comes to creation. However, I agree with you about fact and faith. It's takes alot more faith to believe the universe was created by the Big Bang then it does anything else. I'm mean seriously, do you really believe that any kind of living cell could have survived a blast of that magnitude? If so, explain how such a thing would be possible.

I'll stick with the idea that it was spoken into existence, sounds alot safer

.

edit on 2-8-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-8-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

Claim/Postulate:

'God' results in observed order (i.e. cosmos)

Pseudo-proof:

There is observed order, ergo must 'god' exist.


Not try this for size......

Claim/postulate:

Since his birth Bogomil has been the reason for the development of quantum-physics.

Pseudo-proof:

Quantum-physics has developed, ergo is Bogomil the reason for its development.


As applied logic, it's gibberish.

reply to post by SuperiorEd


You wrote:

["Plato's cave is a good metaphor here. We are blind men describing fire."]

2.409 times (estimate): There are knowledge-gaps in science/logic/general knowledge.

Quote: ["The best and clearest evidence we have for our origin is Genesis 1-3. The best evidence this is true are the first three verses."]

2.409 times (estimate). "We fill such knowledge-gaps with mythology".

Quote: ["As I state in the OP, all the basics of all physics are tied up in the Bible."]

As you ASSUMED in the OP.

Quote: ["Nothing else describes energy in the form of information and light from consciousness as early as the Bible makes the claim."]

Try honey-bees and northern mythology. They both do.

Quote: ["Science is the Johnny-come-lately on the topic."]

The beginnings of real science are 2-3.000 years old.

Quote: ["Science would not dare add consciousness as preexisting matter."]

The holographic cosmos; a working hypothesis.

Quote: ["This makes it the leading voice for all other discoveries. Until science catches up and includes the Holy Spirit (Consciousness) into its equation, it will fail with theory. What it needs to do is source the facts."]

I would alternatively suggest that science must catch up with the flying spaghetti monster. In gibberish logic this claim is as valid as yours.

Quote: ["No other religious book can come close to the facts in the Bible."]

This is a separate topic, which presently is being tried out elsewhere on this forum. Slow going, drowning in theist semantics.

Quote: ["All truth, all virtue, all science and all from the lowliest of authors to the highest kings of the earth. Follow it through history and you see every historical claim unearthed daily. From the names of ancient kings to the most subtle parts of science and philosophy. You can only fault it for rounding pi to 3."]

Yes, it's true, because it's true.

Quote: ["If you need more evidence than this, you are going to be disappointed."]

After a while one gets used to : "It's true, because it's true". No disappointments.

Quote: ["Apart form getting past the flaming sword of Genesis 3, you are blinded from the reward of the truth."]

Pastafarians have a similar test. You must be able to drink one gallon of booze, and still keep your wits.

Quote: ["Science will continue to allow the tree of life to slip from its sight as long as the sword is there to block its blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Preexistence of Consciousness)."]

Does YOUR intellect have such a weird filter. Mine doesn't.