Posted on 09/05/2010 8:38:05 PM PDT by SeanG200
and just where does this nothing exist? And instability is "something"
LOL. That’s just wrong dude.
Stephen Hawking is unbeliever.
I think gravity made popcorn but that’s about it.
“No more than I would consult Stephen Hawking on religion”
Yeah, that’s just the problem. Hawking is making commentary on religion.
I do not pretend to have an answer.
And I didn’t mean to imply the question was directed at you personally or that you were actually agreeing with the concept. The question was rhetorical and intended to highlight the fact that a complete “nothing” violates the logical laws of identity and non-contradiction.
Why not? A supernatural "God" can't be used in science as an answer but a supernatural "singularity" can? Sorry but I don't see the difference. Newton had no problem using God and he made more "scientific" and mathematical discoveries that Hawking could dream of accomplishing. One cannot quantify the origin of the universe using the scientific method but that doesn't stop "scientists" from endlessly pursuing the question. But somehow God is off limits? Totally inconsistent.
.
Ha, great Lego art! I have posted the pic in the blog linked herein. Thanks, awesome!.
.
.
This is key, how does one define science. I have written on this somewhat in a paper posted at SCRIBD:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34407776/Introduction-Technology-Junkies
But the main short point from this paper is this:
[quote]
....Let us see if we can ferret out Mr. Flemming’s starting premise with an interview with Dr. Dean Kenyon, Assistant Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University (Emeritus), when he was asked this question: “What are the general presuppositions that scientists make who study the origin of life?” Dr. Kenyon responded:
“Well, I think there are two general kinds of presuppositions that people can make, one is that life, in fact, did arise naturalistically on the primitive earth by some kind of chemical evolutionary process. The second presupposition would be that life may or may not have arisen by a naturalistic, chemical process. Now, if you have the first presupposition, then the goal of your research is to work out plausible pathways of chemical development to go to the bio-polymers, then to the protocells; and what would be likely pathways that you could demonstrate in the laboratory by simulation experiment. If you have the second presupposition, your still going to be doing experiments, but you’re going to be more open to the possibility that the data, as they [or, it] come[s] in from those studies may actually be suggesting a different explanation of origins altogether.”
The logical position, what I would say is the truly scientific way to look at these issues, is to say what Kenyon just did: “life may or may not have arisen by a naturalistic, chemical process.” He, in other words, did not beg the question. This embedded philosophy is what the fervor was over in Kansas a few years back. The Kansas Board of Education caused a firestorm by hearing the drafting board’s proposal to change one word in the working definition of science. The original drafting commission defined science as:
“Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”
The Kansas board of education drafting committee defined science as,
“Science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”
This simple word change, and the subsequent fervor it caused, illustrates the embedded philosophy in current science....
[/quote]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.