Atheists Physicists Discover God. Turn To Science Of The Gaps.

[james bond]

If you really want to learn some physics, here is a great place to start:

The Feynman Lectures on Physics

(Thanks to sayak for the link)

Hawking mentions Feynman and all the great physicists and so do all the great ones in creation science. They haven't been left out.

 

[Polymath257]

To sum up, we know black holes are invisible. Some claim they exist. Some claim they do not. I think they exist. Creation scientists think they exist. Atheist scientists think they exist. Some don't. How this all plays out is to be determined.

Most of it has already played out. When I was young, there were a couple of contenders for black holes (Cygnus X-11 was one of the better ones at the time). Now, we actually have verified mass and size. That is enough for them to be black holes by most definitions. Not all, though.

So it then becomes a matter of definition: what, precisely, do you mean when you talk of a black hole? The best definition for most purposes is 'something where the escape velocity is more than that of light'. Under that definition, we know there are black holes.

 

[Polymath257]

Hawking mentions Feynman and all the great physicists and so do all the great ones in creation science. They haven't been left out.

Yes, Feynman was one of the greats. He is well worth reading, not just mentioning.

 

[David T]

Oldie but goldie. They now use science of the gaps such as multiverse to deny God's design.

No they have replaced the imbicilicy with imbicilicy they are saying exactly the same nonsense cosmos nature as object. Stupid but it started up through christiAnity in europe and now is secular so big deal you are mocking your stupidity in secular drag big deal.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Oldie but goldie. They now use science of the gaps such as multiverse to deny God's design.

Denying God is not really part of the theory of multiple universes or of infinite universes. Maybe for some people it is, but no that is not relevant. Here's an informative article that discusses whether infinite universes is an idea put forward to answer fine tuning or whether it is something suggested by multiple Physical models: The Multiverse Conundrum | Issue 89 | Philosophy Now

 

[james bond]

By the way, I forgot. Do you aknowledge the authority of those scientists when it comes to make assessments about cosmology?

Ciao

- viole

When you say cosmology, it usually is in the area of philosophy. It could be hypothesis (starting a formal proposal in terms of publishing a paper for others to review (not even close to peer-review)) vs just shooting the bull among us. Is Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking very credible in the area of cosmology, physics and quantum physics? Yes. We have Feynman, Dirac, Oskar Klein, Schwarzschild (not a physicist, but a doodler) and more. Then there are the basic metrics used like Robertson-Walker and Klein metric. Even that doodler has a metric ha ha.

 

[ChristineM]

The video was to show that it was atheist physicists who found the fine tuning theory. Shout out and thanks from the creationists. It really is an oldie but goldie. No wonder the atheists didn't point this out. Now as to the comment that this does not prove design, let me see. What it does is it does prove intelligence behind this fine tuning of our universe. The design is in the universe and how it works because our earth is placed just in the right place with the moon and sun. Then it has these other planets we can explore. So yes, looking at our Milky Way and Earth, I would think that it was designed very nicely.

Furthermore, I would say Stephen Hawking seems to accept these findings and he proposes the existence of Multiverses to counter. It's interesting that the man pictured in the video, Leonard Susskind, is the theoretical physicist who is arguing for GR in his position against Stephen Hawking's view that quantum behaviors affect black holes. Hawking, who I would consider is an expert on black holes, has now modified what is meant by event horizon or horizon in his approach. I think this is correct.

Hawking also believes in fine tuning and it demonstrates his intelligence. Does it also show design? I don't know. It depends what this other universe looks like. Does it look random like a tornado hit my son's room. Or is it some kind of organized structure.

As for my comment, "They now use science of the gaps such as multiverse to deny God's design." It is to in response to what Hawking is saying that the multiverses would show God doesn't play dice and that the existence of our universe was not just one-in-a-trillions occurrence. I really wanted to get that "science of the gaps" point in there.

Back to the video, I would agree its title is misleading and the message cards in it are selling a pov. However, the other content in the video shows evidence of a scientific finding. As for Dick Dawkins, if this was really his response to the finding, then he does seem obsessed with God. Is that one of the main topics of his interview with Weinberg? For a man who disavows God, he does seem obsessed with God by bringing it up. I would say about 1/2 the video is good, but it does make the point that atheist physicists found fine tuning.

Stop misrepresenting and speaking for Hawking, it does you or your faith no good to lie about what you don't understand

 

[james bond]

Well, there is a probem.

This fine tuning is many orders of magnitude finer than it is required to create some cleverer apes on a planet. After all you do not need one tera galaxies in our observable universe alone to make a planet with a few cleverer apes in it.

It is like preparing spaghetti and using an advanced atomic clock to find the optimal time of boiling water with a resolution of a yocto of a pico second.

Ciao

- viole

Ugh. The apes analogy. (I do not consider myself descended from apes because I can use facts, reasoning and historical truths to make and back up an argument. Big problem for evos if you ask me.) The basic thinking related to what you mentioned whatever it means is we have to look at the observer as relative. For example, if you were on a train watching a ping pong game. You would observe the game the same as if it was being played in your back yard (stationary). Now, if you were watching the same game standing away from the train as it passed by and you could see the game (assume it's a glass car), then the ping pong ball is traveling at 100 mph the same speed as the train. It doesn't matter. Both of your measurements are correct. As for spaghetti, there's different thinking on that, too, ha ha. When the theoretical astronaut reaches a black hole, Hawking thinks he will be torn apart with the legs going first and the head later. This is because the effects of gravity is lesser as an object is further away. It means the astronaut will be stretched apart like spaghetti until he is torn. I'll leave the atomic clock alone as that is more difficult to describe in an unbounded vs bounded universe. Enjoy your sphagetti. Ciao.

 

[james bond]

Stop misrepresenting and speaking for Hawking, it does you or your faith no good to lie about what you don't understand

So, please explain Hawking in less than 140 of your own words.

 

[Repox]

If God created the universe, why did he do it?

Assuming God created the universe as a prison for Satan, it is interesting to find empirical evidence for such a design. Satan is a spiritual being, translucent and entirely nonmaterial. Therefore, for Satan to be imprisoned in a material universe, there must be nonmaterial spiritual component to the universe. It would be the "spirit of the universe." If you do some basic research of the universe you find a lot of dark matter and dark energy (about 95% of everything). The more you investigate dark matter and dark energy the more you find an unidentified part to it, one which has no scientific explanation. I believe this unidentified part of dark matter and dark energy is equivalent to a mysterious dark spiritual world created by God to imprison Satan. In other words, Satan can zip around and even through dark matter because he is a spirit. What holds Satan inside the universe is a dark spiritual barrier, one which he cannot breach or "plowed through." It holds Satan inside the universe. Since the beginning of the universe, Satan has tried to escape and return to heaven. There are dark scares on the boundary of the universe. Scientists call those dark anomalies "Axis of Evil." Recently, science has discovered a flow of galaxies going faster than the expansion rate of the universe heading for a particular point on the boundary. Perhaps, this is another attempt by Satan to break out. In the meantime, Satan continues to cause trouble on earth.

 

[james bond]

Denying God is not really part of the theory of multiple universes or of infinite universes. Maybe for some people it is, but no that is not relevant. Here's an informative article that discusses whether infinite universes is an idea put forward to answer fine tuning or whether it is something suggested by multiple Physical models: The Multiverse Conundrum | Issue 89 | Philosophy Now

Multiple universes vs multiple worlds is different. Multiple universes is more complex, so I don't have a good understanding of it. Like I said, I'm trying to grasp black holes first. The creationists have developed the fine tuning theory and thus, the evo thinkers have come up with multiverses to falsify the theory.

As for it's existence, I can't deny a multiverse existence in theoretical physics because we acknowledge the existence of multiple dimensions in theoretical physics. For example, we are suppose to live in a 3-dimensional world, but we cannot know for sure it exists. What we do know is what we see in our mind/brain? We all can imagine the depth of it and our senses let's us know that we can sense it, but we do not know if someone in a higher dimension is manipulating that which we "see." It's the Matrix (yes, from the movie) problem.

 

[ChristineM]

So, please explain Hawking in less than 140 of your own words.

One better, a single link. I don't guess at what hawking thinks and i don't make presumptions as you do. The link is to his extremely famous paper in your neck of the woods, then one in which creationist claim he says there are no black holes. Of course then can only get that spurious interpretation by cherry picking 5 words from a complex paragraph. The paper can be read by clicking the pdf link on the download menu.

[1401.5761] Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes

 

[ChristineM]

So, please explain Hawking in less than 140 of your own words.

While you are in the mood to educate yourself here are another few papers by Hawking

arXiv.org Search

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

@james bond

"The creationists have developed the fine tuning theory and thus, the evo thinkers have come up with multiverses to falsify the theory. "

Shhh you are giving away all our secrets. Stop undermining our global conspiracy to suppress the one true science - creationism.

 

[james bond]

While you are in the mood to educate yourself here are another few papers by Hawking

arXiv.org Search

That's not in your own words, Mr. Internet Atheist. Besides, I already posted this.

 

[james bond]

One better, a single link. I don't guess at what hawking thinks and i don't make presumptions as you do. The link is to his extremely famous paper in your neck of the woods, then one in which creationist claim he says there are no black holes. Of course then can only get that spurious interpretation by cherry picking 5 words from a complex paragraph. The paper can be read by clicking the pdf link on the download menu.

[1401.5761] Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes

I've read several of his papers, so do you want to discuss stuff in this one? Have you read his ABHOT? Have you watched his shows or youtube like I did?

I've educated myself about Hawking, so let's not beat around the bush here if you want to discuss IPAWFFBH.

 

[ChristineM]

That's not in your own words, Mr. Internet Atheist. Besides, I already posted this.

Unlike you i am not in the habit of second guessing hawking and your dictating that i do is really quite childish. Will you be stomping your foit soon?

 

[ChristineM]

I've read several of his papers, so do you want to discuss stuff in this one? Have you read his ABHOT? Have you watched his shows or youtube like I did?

I've educated myself about Hawking, so let's not beat around the bush here if you want to discuss IPAWFFBH.

You have? You surprise me, perhaps its that you didn't understand them.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If I recall, multiple universes vs multiple worlds is different. Multiple universes is more complex, so I don't have a good understanding of it. Like I said, I'm trying to grasp black holes first. The creationists have developed the fine tuning theory and thus, the evo thinkers have come up with multiverses to falsify the theory.

(If I recall properly a magazine article) multiverses were originally proposed to deal with the astounding expansion of the universe discovered in red-shift studies. Everybody was surprised by it, Scientists and non-Scientists included. Space was expanding in all directions, so the question was what was causing the observed expansion. One idea was multiple universes. There were other ideas, some better than others. I once had a book where someone was putting forward their own idea of how they thought expansion affected the speed of light. (Titled 2.8 Angstroms.) This fellow said he had devised a unifying formula explaining the interplay of many physical laws like gravity and electricity, and he argued that the speed of light was relative to our distance from the center of the Big Bang. His book has not proven to be very useful, but it is an example of how there is this problem of an expanding universe that people want to explain.

As for it's existence, I can't deny a multiverse existence in theoretical physics because we acknowledge the existence of multiple dimensions in theoretical physics. For example, we are suppose to live in a 3-dimensional world, but we cannot know for sure it exists. What we do know is what we see in our mind/brain? We all can imagine the depth of it and our senses let's us know that we can sense it, but we do not know if someone in a higher dimension is manipulating that which we "see." It's the Matrix (yes, from the movie) problem.

If we are in a Matrix then we still should observe and try to determine what we can. We should ask questions. Why does space appear to be expanding? Why aren't we 'Allowed' to go faster than the speed of light? How is it that the universe is so vast, and we aren't we at the center?

 

[Windwalker]

In this case, I was using God as one who created the sun, moon, planets, stars in day 4 and outer space (universe) in day 1 and placed Earth in day2 as the beneficiary.

Not one iota of this has scientific evidence. On the contrary all the sciences shows this is patently false. You imagine our planet existed before the sun in this solar system??? How? What would have caused it to form? Do you not understand how the earth was formed?

It does seem evolutionists are looking to replace what creationists say was created with some replacement using science instead of searching for the truth.

Our sciences are us as humans very actively searching for the truth. Creationists are the ones not searching for the truth. They are only about hanging on to their own ideas about God and reality and refusing to let them go and let them evolve. They, are the ones who are Anti-God, to be blunt about it.

Why do they refuse evidence? Why do they refuse knowledge? Can't they think about God in any other way than how they have since they were five years old and everything was done in the world via magic of some sort or another and the world was full of fantastical stories of flying carpets and the like?

In other words, is it knowledge that we are looking for or some way to disavow God as the Creator? This is what I mean by replacing.

The only thing that is being disavowed is some very backwards and outdated beliefs for certain Christians. It's not about God's existence. It's about their incorrect thinking about Reality and their immature faith. It's too bad they can't evolve their understandings to include what science shows us, and embrace their faith in God with a clear, present, and open understanding of the natural world we live in.

It's a shame, actually. Their faith is apparently not strong enough to allow them to let go of their unsupportable beliefs and change how they think of God. The problem isn't with the science. The problem is with their theology and their fearful and wilful stubbornness to entertain they may need to rethink things.