God did not create the Universe

[atanu]

Knowing an unknowable essence is a contradiction.

Hi PH

Thanks

Although, the above is not directed to me, yes, it is a contradiction. Being is however knowing. There are no two ways.

No. There are actually functions that describe the velocity and position of a given particle, but they are related in such a way that the more precise one is, the less precise the other is. I believe this is a consequence of the uncertainty principle, but I'm not sure about that.

Thanks again. I know the Uncertainty principle too well. I once suggested Hawking to work on a parameter called velPos. Joking.

...

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Knowing an unknowable essence is a contradiction.

Yes, that's right. Knowing the 'Essence' is impossible.
For example, we can bring a plant to the lab, and study it well, and gain good knowledge about it. We are not able to this in the case of God, therefore He is Unknowable Essence.

But, it is possible that, if He chooses to reveal Himself to some, in some ways, then they know He exist. He can also reveal some knowledge about His attributes according to our capacity of understanding.
Although we cannot know His Essence, but we can know Him by some attributes.
For example, we may say, He is "Creative", He is "everlasting", He is "self-subsisting", etc...

For example animals, do not know about human's life, problems, discoveries, etc...but they can see us. So, although they don't know our essence, but they see we exist.

 

[Q_man]

Science isn't a belief system, and I'm not sure which scientific theories you accuse of being based on "speculation, assumption and sheer faith."

I'd say M-Theory, parallel universes, worm holes caused by spining blackholes, backward-time travel, to name a few are purely speculative and very much
convenience theories, perhaps with the exception of M-Theory, but then again Kaku needs to earn a living to support his ice skating habit. ;-)

 

[Etritonakin]

Knowing an unknowable essence is a contradiction.


No. There are actually functions that describe the velocity and position of a given particle, but they are related in such a way that the more precise one is, the less precise the other is. I believe this is a consequence of the uncertainty principle, but I'm not sure about that.


Bell's theorem cannot be proven wrong by any experiment, because it is not a model of reality; It is a mathematically proven truth of Quantum Mechanics. As a poster on that thread points out, an attack on Bell's theorem amounts to an attack on QM, which has been experimentally validated. (In fact, Quantum Electrodynamics runs your computer.)

"or inadequate". I'm not saying it's "wrong" -that it has no truth to it whatsoever -just that it's a step -as were all the others. The link was to demonstrate that it is being questioned -as were others -and may yet be "modified" -which is certainly a good thing scientifically.

 

[ellenjanuary]

...and a theorem can be proven wrong or inadequate... as we learn -though they often lead to greater understanding. Einstein improves on Newton, Hawking improves on Einstein, etc...

Why Bell's Theorem is wrong.

(I can't say I understand most of the gobbledeeguk on that page, but I understand the basic principles. I'm more of an overview kinda guy -and knowing all that would probably pop my melon)

If we truly find something causeless, there is no point in looking any further -because there is nothing there.

I think we'll eventually realize it is the modern equivalent of the edge of the world. When we get there and keep going -and find something where we thought would be nothing... the journey will continue.

Cool link.

The problem with using entangled photons to get around non-locality is that the wavelength tends to collapse.

See that? I just wrote like I know something!
But it is a thorny problem, and as Poly pointed out; it is math. It only has to prove itself, it doesn't have to prove reality.

 

[Etritonakin]

Cool link.

The problem with using entangled photons to get around non-locality is that the wavelength tends to collapse.

See that? I just wrote like I know something!
But it is a thorny problem, and as Poly pointed out; it is math. It only has to prove itself, it doesn't have to prove reality.

True "enough" -it does not HAVE TO, but it is a tool we USE TO (apparently among other things) move forward with proving what reality IS -and even create new realites (or new arrangements of present realities with greater skill). It is useful at present, but may yet become dull or obsolete as our craftsmanship improves and we get better tools -to use a tool analogy.

I can understand why science doesn't want to get caught up in the whole right and wrong thing, but when I "modify" things I am usually told I was initially "wrong".
What's up with that??????



(that was meant to be kinda humorous)

"YOU! PHOTONS! Step away from the waveform!"

(that too)

 

[ellenjanuary]

True "enough" -it does not HAVE TO, but it is a tool we USE TO (apparently among other things) move forward with proving what reality IS -and even create new realites (or new arrangements of present realities with greater skill). It is useful at present, but may yet become dull or obsolete as our craftsmanship improves and we get better tools -to use a tool analogy.

I can understand why science doesn't want to get caught up in the whole right and wrong thing, but when I "modify" things I am usually told I was initially "wrong".
What's up with that??????



(that was meant to be kinda humorous)

"YOU! PHOTONS! Step away from the waveform!"

(that too)

It's them dang mathematicians. Ever since that Dirac got away with creating reality from an equation, them dang mathematicians think they are something else. There ought to be a law, no operating the math without a permit.

But yeah, math allows for a lot of possibilities that may have no practical value whatsoever. Just look into how many "flavors" of string theory are floating around, and the government has shelled out, I think, eleven million bucks for these ideas... but M theory (with eleven dimensions and SUSY) might actually be something someday... if the LHC doesn't find a mini singularity instead of a neutralino, that is...

Dang mathematicians.

 

[Etritonakin]

It's them dang mathematicians. Ever since that Dirac got away with creating reality from an equation, them dang mathematicians think they are something else. There ought to be a law, no operating the math without a permit.

But yeah, math allows for a lot of possibilities that may have no practical value whatsoever. Just look into how many "flavors" of string theory are floating around, and the government has shelled out, I think, eleven million bucks for these ideas... but M theory (with eleven dimensions and SUSY) might actually be something someday... if the LHC doesn't find a mini singularity instead of a neutralino, that is...

Dang mathematicians.

I find the place in the mind from which such concepts emanate to be far more interesting than anything outside the mind -
and that which has no practical value can lead to something which does. Wasted time? Not mine!

 

[Pegg]

Modern physics leaves no place for God in the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded in his new book the grand design.

“Did the Universe need a creator?” The answer he gives is a resounding “no”.
http://prince.org/msg/105/343191

so has he discovered if the laws of nature exist outside of the known universe?

 

[outhouse]

no he has not

 

[Pegg]

no he has not

didn't think so

 

[outhouse]

even though were 3 dimensional creatures and think about a 4rth one knows what is outside the space that was created during the big bang.

No one knows excatly what happened 13.7 b years ago with any certainty or detail. We only see and measure the aftermath

 

[Autodidact]

To say that you have Carbon dated something and found that it is millions of years old constitutes the same belief that it takes to accept that God created the universe.

No, actually you're mistaken. No amount of carbon dating can tell you something is millions of years old; carbon dating only works up to a few tens of thousands.
However, if you are referring to radiometric dating in general, then no, you're wrong. One relies on the scientific method, the other does not. It is not, of course, 100%, correct, but once you get into the 99.999% area, it's prudent to accept it as correct. That's where you are with radiometric dating.

There is no way of truely checking your conclusion.

Because science doesn't work?

I have heard examples of recently deceased animals to have been Carbon dated as thousands of years old.

cite?

All im saying is that you need faith to believe something that you can never really check yourself with your five senses.

But of course, with science, you can check. All you have to do is to learn how to do radiometric dating, get access to the material, and you can check it yourself.

 

[Autodidact]

Lol. Of course we would have cars etc as we see the result of the theories used with our own eyes as we build the car. You cant check Carbon Dating in the same way, hence you simply have to believe that it works.

Not carbon dating, radiometric dating, and yes, you can. You can calibrate it. For example, you can carbon date a tree, and independently count the rings, and so calibrate your carbon dating. (This would be carbon dating, because any tree you cut down today would be less than 10,000 years old.) You can radiometrically date an ice core, and then count the layers, and so calibrate your dating method. You can radiometrically date varve layers, and then count them, and so calibrate your dating method. There are a few other things like that with annual layers, such as stalagmites and coral reefs. And guess what. Scientists have tested all of them against radiometric dating. And guess what. It checked out. Over and over and over. Every time. They all give the same results. That's how we know for sure--not just theoretically--that it works. They're no dummies, those scientists.

 

[Autodidact]

Before I answer you, Blackheart, think about what you're trying to do here. You know almost nothing about it. You don't know how it works, you don't even know what it's called, and you have no idea what efforts have been made to check it. But you assume, out of sheer ignorance, that you're going to overthrow all of geology and most of physics. Does that sound very likely to you? Do you really think the world's most brilliant physicists and geologists are stupid or dishonest?

An yet not one of them can be checked.

Yes, they can, and they have. See above. Here's a single calibration curve for a single radiometric dating method, carbon:

Here carbon dating is compared to tree rings, varves, and a couple of other methods. See how they all follow the same line? Just think of the years of work scientists put into checking a single dating method, all of which you are completely, totally and utterly ignorant of. Interesting, isn't it?

You are simply saying that these tests are reliable because someone told you so.

No, because the evidence is overwhelming that they are. Otherwise why would they come out the same as manual methods, such as tree rings, ice cores and varves?

What Im saying is that there is no evidence.

And what I'm saying is that you have no idea what you're talking about.

And when you say you want a scientific report to tell you so then you are proving that it is about faith as you will only accept science to tell you that science has got it wrong.

Well, I think science works. What do you think?

You see the problem for me is not whether or not science has made mistake and got things wrong (coz we all knwo that to be the most consitent thing about it) but that science will act with the very same ignorance and arrogance that you are displaying right now. If you know more about this subject then I do then you are simplying saying that you know about your belief system but when a religous person trys to tell you that his way of seeing things is the right way you will see them how I am seeing you right now.

Science is the best method we have for learning about the natural world. Do you disagree?

Meanwhile, no two religionists can agree about anything, and there not a single statement we can even attribute to religion in general, only to various religions and religionists. Lacking the scientific method, they have no way to achieve consensus other than killing each other.

I just wish that science would not act as if it has the monopoly on knowledge because it clearly doesnt. To get to the moon someone had to go beyond what, at one point, seemed to be scientifically impossible.

Wow. How do you think we got to the moon, Blackheart, science? Or religion?

 

[Autodidact]

Here you go
Carbon dating accuracy: what are the flaws of carbon dating?

Some anonymous person on Essortment? That's your source. Get back to us when you've got some science. Oh, and everything in that article is wrong.

To begin with, Blackheart, your problem isn't with carbon dating, it's with all radiometric dating. That is, you reject almost all geology and paleontology.

You can't win an argument using ignorance as a debating technique. You actually have to learn something.

 

[Autodidact]

This is steve's version of the cosmological constant. He aint no einstein.

Actually, he sort of is--modern version of Einstein.

 

[Meow Mix]

Regarding radiometric dating, as Auto has brilliantly pointed out, they're calibrated through many different methods (sometimes other radiometric sources, other times through ice cores, dendeochronology, etc.)

It is in its face a ridiculous claim to make that radiometric dating is unsupported. It's like walking into a room with 50 clocks, all of them based on completely independent methods of keeping time, all of them agreeing on the SAME time, and then claiming that one of them is ineffective.

 

[Troublemane]

you know Hawking also believes in "dark matter", which cannot be detected by any known means.

He also believes in the "many worlds" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which also has no objective proof and defies the conservation of energy principle.

He may even believe in invisible elves.

 

[Meow Mix]

you know Hawking also believes in "dark matter", which cannot be detected by any known means.

He also believes in the "many worlds" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which also has no objective proof and defies the conservation of energy principle.

He may even believe in invisible elves.

Dark matter is detectable and even measurable indirectly; for instance in the bullet cluster, where the nature of the galaxy's collision with another one has separated the baryonic/visible matter from the dark matter.
(Bullet Cluster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I've never heard of Hawking supporting many-worlds interpretation, where did you get this information?