|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hawking Comes Clean | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Hyro writes:
I completely agree. First Cause arguments seem pointless because it's an infinite loop of semantics and where no evidence from either side can be given. This kind of argument is no more convincing when it comes from Hawking than when it comes from a religious apologist. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
He is dabbling in metaphysics, but there is no basis for reaching any metaphysical conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
cavediver writes:
Granted. However, some of the reports that I had seen on the net seemed to indicate that Hawking was making a metaphysical claim.The causal structure of space-time in semi-classical quantum gravity is not "metaphysics". This youtube video clears that up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
kbertsche writes:
This seems to say that you live in a fake world, with The Wizard of Oz as puppet master behind the scenes, pulling strings and levers in order to maintain the illusion that it is real.
The biblical perspective would see them as something metaphysically much simpler; contingent minute-by-minute on God, their consistency a direct consequence of God's consistent character.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Bolder-dash writes:
Since cavediver actually is a theoretical physicist, what he says does carry a bit more weight than, for example, what you say on the subject.
You are sitting in a room, on a place in the earth, the same as everyone else is, pondering what you think seems to be true. You can think about what you feels makes up the universe, and what you feel is reality, but it is no more valid, and carries no more weight than what anyone else thinks. Bolder-dash writes:
If you study some of the history of science, you will see that they were crafted by intelligent human scientists. So, yes, I would say that they are intelligently crafted.
The "laws" of the universe appear to be intelligently crafted. Bolder-dash writes:
The world is just as it is. If you don't agree, then I suppose you would be saying that the world isn't just as it is, and that would be a very strange thing to say.
I don't know how one comes to the philosophical perspective that you do, that one can just say 'they just are what they are" and that this somehow dismisses the necessity to explain how or why things came to be as they are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
kbertsche writes:
It seems to me that it just says that there is no role for a "god of the gaps".
But the claim that "a god is not required" is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Bolder-dash writes:
However, what you actually said to cavediver in Message 56 was:
Well, let's see, I wrote that a theoretical physicist has no more intrinsic ability to look at the world around them, see the order, imagine what is chaos, and draw conclusions about the unseen. Bolder-dash writes:
That bears little resemblance to what you now claim that you said.You are sitting in a room, on a place in the earth, the same as everyone else is, pondering what you think seems to be true. You can think about what you feels makes up the universe, and what you feel is reality, but it is no more valid, and carries no more weight than what anyone else thinks. The earlier statement (from Message 56) was an assertion about validity. Your newer claim is that it was an assertion about intrinsic ability. If you cannot even correctly describe what you yourself said in an earlier post, then it is hard to see why anybody should ever pay attention to anything you say. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
slevesque writes:
It will be seen by some as metaphorical, provided that they give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is meaningful.
If I say ''God sustains the laws of physics'', which is a metaphysical statement, how can this not be metaphysical for anyone, regardless of their worldview?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
slevesque writes:
For those who see "God" as a metaphor, it couldn't be anything else.
Metaphorical ?? slevesque writes:
That's to be doubted.
It goes without saying that the statement has to be meaningful ... slevesque writes:
I don't even have to view it as a claim.
But even if I tell you that ''Xyroflexians use specially made Roteflaziozos to make objects fall to the ground'', and you know I actually some kind of mental image of what both those thigns are, even if you think it is complete bullocks you still have to view my claim as metaphysical. slevesque writes:
Meaning is subjective. In a conversation, a speaker and a listener are not guaranteed to take it the same way.
It doesn't depend on your own worldview or point of view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Buzsaw writes:
There probably wasn't a first cause.
If there was a first cause ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
nwr writes: There probably wasn't a first cause. slevesque writes:
The only implication would be that could have been something before the colliding branes. And something before that, and something before that.
And there goes colliding branes out the window I guess. slevesque writes:
I am content to wait for actual evidence.
How can you even judge which one is more probable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
slevesque writes:
I have no need for a default position.So does this mean you consider the 'no first cause' position as the default position ? It does not trouble me that there are questions for which we do not currently have answers, and perhaps some for which we will never have answers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
slevesque writes:
No. But I am wondering what you don't understand about "probably."
Then your opinion has change since this:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024