Posted on 09/08/2010 10:40:57 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
“Can’t be refuted. Can’t be confirmed.
That’s the point.
Bad science.”
Yes, that’s the reason why including God in the model of the Universe is bad science. If you could confirm the existence of God then it would make sense to include it.
Was Einstein's theory of General Relativity "bad science" because it was decades before it could be confirmed?
I think not. That's how theoretical science works. The theory OFTEN outpaces the practical ability to put the theory to the test.
CERN - the European super-collider, is right now working to prove some of the very principles of M-Theory, that were unprovable just ten years ago. Does that make super symmetry "bad science"? Perhaps you think it does.
You’re making a lot of assumptions about me that are unfounded, and “proof by arrogant condescension” just shows your own intellectual failings.
Your “proof” is not “proof” of uniformity,
it is an example based on an assumption.
You’re showing me a tailless dog and asserting that dogs don’t have tails.
No, I'm showing you mathematical certainty, and because you (apparently) don't have the training to understand the formula, you refuse to accept it. This is your problem, not my problem.
You have yet to understand the question,
so I’m going to give up...
but I can’t resist...
“you obviously lack the training to understand my question”
Thanks, I enjoyed the perspective.
The term ‘phase shift’ might be relevant to this exchange you’re having with an arrogant thug whose whole day is predicated upon condescension to make itself feel ‘superior’. One can ‘assume’ uniformity will continue, but because of the reality that the universe has gone through phase shifts (ex: inflation) such an assumption as continuous uniformity cannot be proven.
“Good luck with that pocket watch found in the deep woods, which you prefer to insist got there by complete chance, without an intelligence behind it’s existence.”
Just because you don’t understand how the Universe could exist without an “intelligence” behind it doesn’t mean that there actually was one.
And if this “intelligence” exists, how did it come to exist? What is it made of? How does it think? How does it interact with the universe in order to create things?
I don’t know ... and neither do you or Stephen Hawking. Stephen is a great mind and will readily affirm there are things he just doesn’t know. That he doesn’t know doesn’t mean they are not real. The analogy of the watch was meant to offerf you a moment of reflection upon that very aspect of ‘faith’ as something humans use when they cannot know ‘how’. ... Watchout for those armless chairs in your future.
And you think there will ever be a test devised by man to prove God was not involved in the creation of the universe?
That’s what you are arguing.
Your delusion is fully-formed.
No, I'm fairly confident that's not what I'm arguing.
You can't prove something doesn't exist. You can only prove that it does exist, if it actually exists.
Hawking isn't saying there isn't a God. He saying he has an explanation for the origin of the universe that makes sense absent any kind of supernatural force or catalyst.
Perhaps the better question you should be asking is, when will religion devises a test to prove God's existence?
Of course, this is why we have faith, and the reason it was described in Hebrews 1:11 as "...Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
If someone comes along - like Hawking - and says Voilà - here is a mathematically certain explanation for the creation of the universe, and its cause. Why would anyone of faith find their faith shaken?
Morever, why would anyone of faith care if I, or Hawking or anyone else didn't wish to believe? How does our belief (or lack thereof) impact your belief? But we see, even on this very thread, the reflexive and absolute personal disdain for Hawking, where he is described in the most crude and insulting of terms. It's disappointing, to say the least.
In any event, there may come a time where someone, riffing off Hawkings work, devises an experiment that can recreate the conditions of the Big Bang where these theorized forces can actually be seen, measured or recorded in some way at least on a micro-scale. In fact, this is precisely what is going on at CERN today.
Even if that comes to pass, it still will never sate the believers. For them, probably like yourself, irrespective of what physical evidence, experimentation or mathematical formulas are put forward, you will believe there is something "else". That's fine, but it doesn't make Hawking wrong.
That "arrogant thug" might be superior and he might not, but that doesn't make you any less of a douche-bag than you are. Hypothetically speaking, of course.
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.