Who gave Jesus all authority in Heaven and Earth?

[metis]

Since you did not specify who your post was meant for I will assume it was for me since I mentioned Hawking's pathetic attempt at philosophy. If you want some tips concerning addressing a post to someone please let me know. Ok, so now to your statements above.

1. I did not quote his statement in any context at all. So it is impossible I took what he said out of context. To claim a statement was out of context is the last shriek a person makes in defense of a doomed argument in many cases.
2. Also in this case his statement's meaning is obvious without mentioning any context.
3. Hawking has arrogantly proclaimed the entire field of philosophy was no longer viable. However he hypocritically then spent most of his latest book making statements of philosophy which he has no competency with instead of science for which he is supposed to be competent.
4. Now then lets see that even if what you stated was actually what he meant concerning gravity waves. (however since he did not actually say waves I would like you to explain how it is you know he meant waves instead of what he actually said, but I will simply assume you are right and evaluate whether claiming his claim was about waves makes what he said less absurd).
5. As even the physics learned by freshmen in college (and I have far more than that) is enough to see that gravity or gravity waves cannot bring anything into being.
6. Gravity or gravity waves (whatever you think the difference is) are a property of mass. However Hawking posits the insane claim that gravity (waves?) brought mass into existence. This is ridiculous.
7. Additionally Hawking states that gravity (waves?) is the explanation for the universe coming into existence out of nothing. What the heck is he talking about. He has equated gravity (waves?) with nothing. Yet gravity is something and not nothing. So in effect Hawking is saying that something is the explanation for how something created everything out of something. This sounds like teenagers smoking pot discussing the nature of reality.
8. As all philosophers do or should know nothing has no causal relationship with any and all effects. And nothing (not something, even gravitational waves) is what actually existed prior to the big bang in the sense of matter, space, and time which includes gravity waves.
9. If someone was drinking the Kool-Aid that the theoretical physics are handing out so that they wanted to resurrect even a still born theory like what Hawking stated they might attempt to suggest that Hawking was talking about the law of gravity. However that is no help either as natural laws do not stand in causal relationships either. 2 + 2 for example has never created 4 of anything.


BTW I have a math degree but forget my qualifications. Everything I have stated above is consistent with mainstream physics, philosophy, cosmology, and applied mathematics. I first heard of Hawking's abortive attempt at philosophy in the non-scientific statement from him that I quoted while listening to a very well credentialed philosopher and a professor in pure mathematics from Princeton or Oxford (I can't remember which ).

Even though I have no clue whether Hawking is right or wrong on this, nevertheless I think it is wrong to portray him as if he's the village idiot. One may disagree with him, and he himself has admitted that he's been wrong on some matters, but I seriously do not believe that it is right and proper to disparage him just because you don't agree with him.

BTW, your point #5 is really nonsensical because it appears you do not even get close to understanding the nature of gravitational waves and how it's at least theoretically possible that they could generate universes. A great many cosmologists do believe that Brane Theory is in the running, and gravitational waves can possibly qualify as being cosmic membranes that could rub off each other, thus spinning off universes.

Since you are so absolutely sure that Hawking is wrong and that you are right, there simply is no where to go with this discussion, so I'll leave you with your certainty on such matters and I will continue to go with "I don't know".

 

[Blessed of JEHOVAH]

Since you did not specify who your post was meant for I will assume it was for me since I mentioned Hawking's pathetic attempt at philosophy. If you want some tips concerning addressing a post to someone please let me know. Ok, so now to your statements above.

1. I did not quote his statement in any context at all. So it is impossible I took what he said out of context. To claim a statement was out of context is the last shriek a person makes in defense of a doomed argument in many cases.
2. Also in this case his statement's meaning is obvious without mentioning any context.
3. Hawking has arrogantly proclaimed the entire field of philosophy was no longer viable. However he hypocritically then spent most of his latest book making statements of philosophy which he has no competency with instead of science for which he is supposed to be competent.
4. Now then lets see that even if what you stated was actually what he meant concerning gravity waves. (however since he did not actually say waves I would like you to explain how it is you know he meant waves instead of what he actually said, but I will simply assume you are right and evaluate whether claiming his claim was about waves makes what he said less absurd).
5. As even the physics learned by freshmen in college (and I have far more than that) is enough to see that gravity or gravity waves cannot bring anything into being.
6. Gravity or gravity waves (whatever you think the difference is) are a property of mass. However Hawking posits the insane claim that gravity (waves?) brought mass into existence. This is ridiculous.
7. Additionally Hawking states that gravity (waves?) is the explanation for the universe coming into existence out of nothing. What the heck is he talking about. He has equated gravity (waves?) with nothing. Yet gravity is something and not nothing. So in effect Hawking is saying that something is the explanation for how something created everything out of something. This sounds like teenagers smoking pot discussing the nature of reality.
8. As all philosophers do or should know nothing has no causal relationship with any and all effects. And nothing (not something, even gravitational waves) is what actually existed prior to the big bang in the sense of matter, space, and time which includes gravity waves.
9. If someone was drinking the Kool-Aid that the theoretical physics are handing out so that they wanted to resurrect even a still born theory like what Hawking stated they might attempt to suggest that Hawking was talking about the law of gravity. However that is no help either as natural laws do not stand in causal relationships either. 2 + 2 for example has never created 4 of anything.


BTW I have a math degree but forget my qualifications. Everything I have stated above is consistent with mainstream physics, philosophy, cosmology, and applied mathematics. I first heard of Hawking's abortive attempt at philosophy in the non-scientific statement from him that I quoted while listening to a very well credentialed philosopher and a professor in pure mathematics from Princeton or Oxford (I can't remember which ).

Hey does flying come from the observation of birds? If so is that where they get the physics from? If that's the case, you know how they speak about UFO's and say they defy the laws of physics? Well have they looked at bees or flies or humming birds?

 

[1robin]

Thanks, I enjoyed our discussions, too. We both like Rush and Monty Python, which is unusual, especially the latter. I do not know many Christians who like Monty Python. As a matter of fact, I know one. Myself when I was a Christian. That does not bode too well, for the future of your faith, if I were statistically significant, lol.

As concerns topics we have not discussed yet, i am not sure there are any. As a matter of fact, I am reducing my posting activity mainly because of the time I can allocate to it. And therefore, I am not sure I could reply with the usual promptness and focus.

But I might get more time in the future, or better inspiration. I cannot exclude that I will find inspiration on other threads or just interefere every now and then.

Ciao

- viole

That sounds good, I used to be able to debate for months at a time but after I hit the 10,000 post mark I started loosing interest after a few days. Now after a few days I need a month or more off. So I am all for limiting the debates I am in. I might just post summary's in the threads I am in and go back underground for a while. Talk at you later.

 

[1robin]

Even though I have no clue whether Hawking is right or wrong on this, nevertheless I think it is wrong to portray him as if he's the village idiot. One may disagree with him, and he himself has admitted that he's been wrong on some matters, but I seriously do not believe that it is right and proper to disparage him just because you don't agree with him.

The statement I quoted is not merely wrong, it is incoherent. It is not merely wrong, there exist no possibility it could ever be right. I made no claim that he was an idiot, I am sure he could run circles around me in a physics debate. However I gave his statement as an example of the utter nonsense that theoretical scientists cough up that are used to make claims about theology (which Hawking does himself).

BTW, your point #5 is really nonsensical because it appears you do not even get close to understanding the nature of gravitational waves and how it's at least theoretically possible that they could generate universes. A great many cosmologists do believe that Brane Theory is in the running, and gravitational waves can possibly qualify as being cosmic membranes that could rub off each other, thus spinning off universes.

Instead of directly arguing with what you said let me instead point out some very simplistic problems with your claim and the clarify my own claim to which you responded because arguing over meaningless details is not productive.

1. I do not think Hawking said gravity waves in the context of what I quoted. Please provide direct proof concerning why you claim Hawking meant waves instead of what he did say in what I quoted.

2. Gravity waves according to every definition I am familiar with (that is if they actually exist) are products of other entities. So instead of the word "mass" I used lets use natural entities (in whatever form) to make this simpler.

3. Also the term Universe means: The Universe is all of time and space and its contents.[9][10][11][12] It includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy. The observable universe is about 28 billion parsecs (91 billion light-years) in diameter.[3] The size of the entire Universe is unknown, but there are many hypotheses about the composition and evolution of the Universe.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
To summarize: The universe consists of every natural entity that exist.

So you cannot propose (or at least you shouldn't) that a piece of furniture (gravitational waves, if they even exist) contained within the universe is the explanation of that same universe. This violates the principle of cause and effect, the principle of sufficient causation, and common sense, etc.....

4. You should also claim that something is nothing. Even if we do not agree what is necessary for gravitational waves to exist surely we can agree that waves are something and not nothing. So what he said is not just wrong but incoherent as well.

5. Also what makes an entity a wave is that whatever it is must propagate in time. I do not even care what speed it is propagating at or what shape it takes. If it is claimed that these waves (no matter what shape or frequency) are the cause of the universe then they must be eternal. However this smacks against the absolute fact that you cannot have an infinite series of anything. That is a logical absurdity. Nothing in time can possibly consist of an infinite series of events.

Look I can keep pointing out why a single statement is scientifically (and actually his statement is classified as metaphysical speculation not science) and philosophically bankrupt but if that can't be conceded at this point then no amount of pointing it out will help.

Since you are so absolutely sure that Hawking is wrong and that you are right, there simply is no where to go with this discussion, so I'll leave you with your certainty on such matters and I will continue to go with "I don't know".

Why did you say you wanted out of the conversation at the end of your post? I typed all the stuff I posted above without knowing you were not interested in listening to anyone that disagrees with you. What a waste of your and what is far worse my own time.

I went back and looked at your forum name, now I remember who you are, now everything adds up.

 

[savagewind]

now everything adds up.

Hallelujah!

 

[1robin]

Hey does flying come from the observation of birds?

I did not mention birds or flying, at least I could find nowhere that I did.

If so is that where they get the physics from?

At no time in my own physics classes did anyone claim that physics came from looking at flying birds. However it may be true that those humans pioneering flight may have looked to birds wings and it may be that the physics gained from other observations was applied to bird flight. look I have no idea what your driving at so unless you explain it I have no idea how to answer your questions.

If that's the case, you know how they speak about UFO's and say they defy the laws of physics?

Since it is impossible for a natural entity (UFOs) to not obey natural laws (physics) unless a miracle occurred then there is no reason to suggest otherwise nor have I ever heard a well credentialed scientist say different.

Well have they looked at bees or flies or humming birds?

Bees and flies both obey physics and anyone wanting to shoot across the galaxy would not look at either for inspiration. The notion of aliens visiting Earth is absurd but even if they have or will they will look at nuclear, photonic, or some very exotic means of propulsion not insects.

Can you explain what any of this has to do with? It certainly has nothing to do with my claims about Hawking.

 

[metis]

The statement I quoted is not merely wrong, it is incoherent. It is not merely wrong, there exist no possibility it could ever be right. I made no claim that he was an idiot, I am sure he could run circles around me in a physics debate. However I gave his statement as an example of the utter nonsense that theoretical scientists cough up that are used to make claims about theology (which Hawking does himself).

Instead of directly arguing with what you said let me instead point out some very simplistic problems with your claim and the clarify my own claim to which you responded because arguing over meaningless details is not productive.

1. I do not think Hawking said gravity waves in the context of what I quoted. Please provide direct proof concerning why you claim Hawking meant waves instead of what he did say in what I quoted.

2. Gravity waves according to every definition I am familiar with (that is if they actually exist) are products of other entities. So instead of the word "mass" I used lets use natural entities (in whatever form) to make this simpler.

3. Also the term Universe means: The Universe is all of time and space and its contents.[9][10][11][12] It includes planets, moons, minor planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy. The observable universe is about 28 billion parsecs (91 billion light-years) in diameter.[3] The size of the entire Universe is unknown, but there are many hypotheses about the composition and evolution of the Universe.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
To summarize: The universe consists of every natural entity that exist.

So you cannot propose (or at least you shouldn't) that a piece of furniture (gravitational waves, if they even exist) contained within the universe is the explanation of that same universe. This violates the principle of cause and effect, the principle of sufficient causation, and common sense, etc.....

4. You should also claim that something is nothing. Even if we do not agree what is necessary for gravitational waves to exist surely we can agree that waves are something and not nothing. So what he said is not just wrong but incoherent as well.

5. Also what makes an entity a wave is that whatever it is must propagate in time. I do not even care what speed it is propagating at or what shape it takes. If it is claimed that these waves (no matter what shape or frequency) are the cause of the universe then they must be eternal. However this smacks against the absolute fact that you cannot have an infinite series of anything. That is a logical absurdity. Nothing in time can possibly consist of an infinite series of events.

Look I can keep pointing out why a single statement is scientifically (and actually his statement is classified as metaphysical speculation not science) and philosophically bankrupt but if that can't be conceded at this point then no amount of pointing it out will help.



Why did you say you wanted out of the conversation at the end of your post? I typed all the stuff I posted above without knowing you were not interested in listening to anyone that disagrees with you. What a waste of your and what is far worse my own time.

I went back and looked at your forum name, now I remember who you are, now everything adds up.

It would be nice if you could actually get to the point with your posts instead of having a word mash. Even if I wanted to reply to the above, there's way too much to cover.

 

[1robin]

It would be nice if you could actually get to the point with your posts instead of having a word mash. Even if I wanted to reply to the above, there's way too much to cover.

1. It appears as best as I can tell from your replies that you never wanted a debate. So why did you bother posting anything?
2. You even waited to the end to of your post (which would take a certain amount of time to address) and then punted at the end of said post which made the time I spent pointless.
3. I could have sworn I had you on ignore but I looked and did not see your name and since many people have changed out their avatar I cannot decide if I remember you correctly.
4. There can be no subjects that require and deserve greater time spent to resolve them than issues of theology or physics. So if you do not want to invest that time then you should not respond to posts on those subjects (at least in response to me).

So before I waste more time on someone that disinterested or you waste any more time posting why it is you really do not want to post, let's just drop it here.

 

[metis]

1. It appears as best as I can tell from your replies that you never wanted a debate. So why did you bother posting anything?
2. You even waited to the end to of your post (which would take a certain amount of time to address) and then punted at the end of said post which made the time I spent pointless.
3. I could have sworn I had you on ignore but I looked and did not see your name and since many people have changed out their avatar I cannot decide if I remember you correctly.
4. There can be no subjects that require and deserve greater time spent to resolve them than issues of theology or physics. So if you do not want to invest that time then you should not respond to posts on those subjects (at least in response to me).

So before I waste more time on someone that disinterested or you waste any more time posting why it is you really do not want to post, let's just drop it here.

Just as an example, you posted this:

5. As even the physics learned by freshmen in college (and I have far more than that) is enough to see that gravity or gravity waves cannot bring anything into being.
6. Gravity or gravity waves (whatever you think the difference is) are a property of mass. However Hawking posits the insane claim that gravity (waves?) brought mass into existence. This is ridiculous.

No, what is "ridiculous" are the above and many other statements of supposed fact that are in reality conjectural. How does one respond to such an arrogant approach in a field that clearly is not yours?

It's know-it-all statements like that which make having any kind of serious discussion with you virtually impossible.

 

[viole]

That sounds good, I used to be able to debate for months at a time but after I hit the 10,000 post mark I started loosing interest after a few days. Now after a few days I need a month or more off. So I am all for limiting the debates I am in. I might just post summary's in the threads I am in and go back underground for a while. Talk at you later.

Ok,

Talking of grammar, what does "loosing interest" mean?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Just as an example, you posted this:


No, what is "ridiculous" are the above and many other statements of supposed fact that are in reality conjectural. How does one respond to such an arrogant approach in a field that clearly is not yours?

It's know-it-all statements like that which make having any kind of serious discussion with you virtually impossible.

First let me point out that since a thorough response from me is in your eyes something to be complained about, I am here going to be very brief so I do not waste a significant amount of my down time. So far the only thing you have offered is to suggest (with out any evidence so far) that he should have said "waves" in his statement. The jury has been out on virtually every point I have made so far. For example the jury concluded that nothing is not equivalent to something thousands of years ago, not that a jury was ever necessary to know that to begin with.

1. First let me point out again that so far you have not even attempted to post any evidence for thinking Hawking meant gravity waves instead of the simple attraction between two entities with mass.
2. Once you do so (and I have no intention of denying any reasonable evidence for his use of waves), then you need to explain why it is meaningful to point out that he meant "waves".
3. Then you need to explain how it is that "waves" are actually nothing instead of something which Hawking stated.
4. Then you need to show that gravity "waves" even exist.
5. Then you need to explain how gravity "waves" which are a product of other entities could bring into being the entities which the "waves" need to exist before they can. If x is contingent upon the existence of y then how in the world did x exist to bring y into existence if x requires y to exist its self? Since the probability this has or could ever occur is 0% then my claim that it hasn't occurred is perfectly rational and the issue is settled. So the purpose for me is to merely point out why this is the case but I cannot do so in a small enough space to fit within your
6. Then explain how a propagating wave could have actually oscillated an infinite number of cycles.

I can keep going forever pointing out flaws and almost certain proofs as to why what he claimed is not true but pointing out all the ways why statement is incorrect is exhausting. I was going to say that the only merit his statement has is that I can't prove it is impossible but then again I think I can, so I have no idea what merit what he said can possibly have. Instead of me wasting my time why don't you point out the actual evidence for this ever occurring, anywhere, at any time?

 

[1robin]

Ok,

Talking of grammar, what does "loosing interest" mean?

Ciao

- viole

I do not know, I loost interest before I could find out.

 

[metis]

First let me point out that since a thorough response from me is in your eyes something to be complained about, I am here going to be very brief so I do not waste a significant amount of my down time.

1. First let me point out again that so far you have not even attempted to post any evidence for thinking Hawking meant gravity waves instead of the simple attraction between two entities with mass.
2. Once you do so (and I have no intention of denying any reasonable evidence for his use of waves), then you need to explain why it is meaningful to point out that he meant "waves".
3. Then you need to explain how it is that "waves" are actually nothing instead of something which Hawking stated.
4. Then you need to show that gravity "waves" even exist.
5. Then you need to explain how gravity "waves" which are a product of other entities could bring into being the entities which the "waves" need to exist before they can. If x is contingent upon the existence of y then how in the world did x exist to bring y into existence if x requires y to exist its self? Since the probability this has or could ever occur is 0% then my claim that it hasn't occurred is perfectly rational and the issue is settled. So the purpose for me is to merely point out why this is the case but I cannot do so in a small enough space to fit within your
6. Then explain how a propagating wave could have actually oscillated an infinite number of cycles.

I can keep going forever pointing out flaws and almost certain proofs as to why what he claimed is not true but pointing out all the ways why statement is incorrect is exhausting. I was going to say that the only merit his statement has is that I can't prove it is impossible but then again I think I can, so I have no idea what merit what he said can possibly have. Instead of me wasting my time why don't you point out the actual evidence for this ever occurring, anywhere, at any time?

Check this out, and there's plenty more where that came from if you google "gravity waves": https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/what-are-gw

Secondly, what Hawking was saying is that he hypothesizes that gravity waves alone could possibly create universes. Gravity waves are not "nothing", as the above article explains.
Thirdly, since these waves actually have substance to them, including even traveling at the speed of light, it is entirely conceivable that two of more waves could rub across each other and spin off energy in the form of sub-atomic particles that could generate the making of universes (Brane Theory). Since this rubbing probably would not be completely uniform (cosmologists do believe it is most likely that different sub-atomic particles was involved in our mix), not only is it likely different sub-atomic particles could be involved, but also the immense heat and pressure tends to create additional variations, such as what appears likely to have happened at the BB of our universe.

Etc.

 

[1robin]

Check this out, and there's plenty more where that came from if you google "gravity waves": https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/what-are-gw

Secondly, what Hawking was saying is that he hypothesizes that gravity waves alone could possibly create universes. Gravity waves are not "nothing", as the above article explains.
Thirdly, since these waves actually have substance to them, including even traveling at the speed of light, it is entirely conceivable that two of more waves could rub across each other and spin off energy in the form of sub-atomic particles that could generate the making of universes (Brane Theory). Since this rubbing probably would not be completely uniform (cosmologists do believe it is most likely that different sub-atomic particles was involved in our mix), not only is it likely different sub-atomic particles could be involved, but also the immense heat and pressure tends to create additional variations, such as what appears likely to have happened at the BB of our universe.

Etc.

Hold the phone a second. I am busy right now so cannot post much. However, so far I have searched your link for every term that is relevant to anything I have stated. I did not pull up anything. I am going to spend enough time to read the entire article before I post my response but if you think that I should change my mind if your article proves you right then if I show that it does not prove you or Hawking correct concerning even a single claim I made, will you change your mind? So please respond with a yes or no for now then let me complete my research into your article.

 

[metis]

Hold the phone a second. I am busy right now so cannot post much. However, so far I have searched your link for every term that is relevant to anything I have stated. I did not pull up anything. I am going to spend enough time to read the entire article before I post my response but if you think that I should change my mind if your article proves you right then if I show that it does not prove you or Hawking correct concerning even a single claim I made, will you change your mind? So please respond with a yes or no for now then let me complete my research into your article.

I'm only dealing with your point that supposedly there is no evidence that gravity waves even exist, and my post certainly gives more than enough evidence that they indeed do exist. That's all I was commenting on.

Here's what you wrote:

Then you need to show that gravity "waves" even exist.

They exist, and therefore they hypothetically could rub against each other, thus spinning off a universe(s).

 

[1robin]

I'm only dealing with your point that supposedly there is no evidence that gravity waves even exist, and my post certainly gives more than enough evidence that they indeed do exist. That's all I was commenting on.

They exist, and therefore they hypothetically could rub against each other, thus spinning off a universe(s).

Ok, I will grant that they exist for the sake of argument because I never denied they exist. That means that you have provided 1 of the 6 or 7 things I said you must provide before you would have salvaged Hawking's statement.

Regardless, I am going to give you an easy out here. I read the entire site you gave me the link to, and it only proved the claim I made that the statement I quoted from Hawking is absurd in several different categories. I am prepared to commit an avalanche of evidence and argumentation far greater than I have so far showing even more so, that Hawking's statement is patently wrong. However since you balked at some of my posts because they were somewhat thorough, and since you only comment about a single statement or two in a comprehensive post, then I request you debate in good faith. You can call it quits here if you want but if you want a debate it is going to get detailed and much more exhaustive from this point on and I request a sufficient, careful, and challenging effort from you from this point on. Do you agree or do you want to call it quits here?

BTW can you quote the post where I said gravity waves do not exist? I can't find it.

 

[metis]

Ok, I will grant that they exist for the sake of argument because I never denied they exist...

BTW can you quote the post where I said gravity waves do not exist? I can't find it.

You can't even get right what I was clearly saying in response to your own post whereas you asked for evidence for g.w., and I provided it.

Outta here.

 

[1robin]

You can't even get right what I was clearly saying in response to your own post whereas you asked for evidence for g.w., and I provided it.

Outta here.

See ya...... Please be prepared to have an actual debate the next time you respond to one of my posts or you can put me on ignore and save us the trouble.

 

[savagewind]

See ya...... Please be prepared to have an actual debate the next time you respond to one of my posts or you can put me on ignore and save us the trouble.

I hate on ignore. Don't you? I might hate auto grammar correction more, but it is very, very close.

 

[1robin]

I hate on ignore. Don't you? I might hate auto grammar correction more, but it is very, very close.

No, I do not hate it, but I do not put anyone on ignore unless they force the issue. I prefer those who say they are ignoring something I have said to actually put me on ignore and save us both but I do so myself only in extreme circumstances.