South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

July 18, 2019, 22:17:31 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God

 (Read 8838 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #30 on: September 09, 2010, 15:14:37 PM »

I'm betting a six pack that Michael Meadon doesn't understand pabi AKA CTG.

I'm also putting a bottle of Jameson on that we'll fail (yet again) to get the explanation we so dearly require as to why we should take pabi seriously in the first place.

I'll quite understand if I get no takers  Wink
Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 09, 2010, 15:21:13 PM »

P.S.

Telly, old bean, I don't know which book you were reading - I've never heard of Hawkins.

We're discussing Prof. Stephen Hawking's book, Get with the program, old chap  Wink

mdg
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #32 on: September 09, 2010, 15:26:01 PM »

And that after mefiante had to correct that exact error in this thread from another fundie already. 

tsk tsk.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 09, 2010, 17:29:15 PM »

Oh dear, I laughed at your joke Mefiante, does that make me your lap dog/minion too?  Evil
Only if you beg me nicely… Grin

Either that, or you start biting the ankles of, and howling at those whose profound arguments I am obviously too dense to comprehend.  Laughing at my jokes will get you a good grooming, though. Wink

'Luthon64
Logged
Michael Meadon
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



michaelmeadon
WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 09, 2010, 17:35:06 PM »


@Michael Meadon - I would like to think that I am your friend (albeit an internet one) and feel it's necessary to tell you that the woo is strong with the one they call Teleological. I wish you luck.
When all else fails, just pat him on the head and toss him a cookie.  Wink

mdg

Thanks for the warning!  Smiley (And the feeling is mutual)... Yeah, I've seen Telly's posts around and noted the... erm... somewhat unclear thinking. But hey, I'm a sucker for punishment.
Logged
Michael Meadon
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



michaelmeadon
WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 09, 2010, 17:43:26 PM »

I'm betting a six pack that Michael Meadon doesn't understand pabi AKA CTG.

Erm... Molecular biology? Genetics? High school biology taught me all about base pairs. But K? That threw me.

Also... if I'm right, my poison is Black Label.  Smiley
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 09, 2010, 17:59:24 PM »

Erm... Molecular biology? Genetics? High school biology taught me all about base pairs. But K? That threw me.
No, that would be ACTG.  “AKA” = “also known as,” and “CTG” = “classical theistic god.”  See here (among several other points further left within the forum) to get an even more muddled and incoherent picture of the latter miraculous entity.

'Luthon64
Logged
Michael Meadon
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



michaelmeadon
WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 09, 2010, 22:02:09 PM »

Ah, right... :-)

But isn't pabi a protein?
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2010, 07:53:18 AM »

pabi is short for Pure Act / Being Itself because there is no way in hell I was going to keep on writing that out.

A complete ex recto, vacuous description if ever there has been one. Navel gazing at its very very very best.

In my opinion better not to have said anything at all.
Logged
Michael Meadon
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



michaelmeadon
WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 10, 2010, 08:28:53 AM »

Right... But, as it turns out, pabi is ALSO a protein: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PABI. Not sure how in the hell I knew that.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #40 on: September 10, 2010, 09:50:10 AM »

Teleological, you are terribly confused. On the "something coming from nothing" question, you should really read up on quantum mechanics. And... who cares if he doesn't restrict himself to the "classical metaphysical conception"? That conception is based on nothing more solid that human intuition, and, since the universe is not only stranger than we conceive, but stranger that we can possible conceive, there is just no reason to think our intuitions are a guide to truth. Dawkins has a most excellent TED Talk on this: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_our_queer_universe.html

Michael, it is not an intuition that circles are not squares or triangles have three sides, it is also not an intuition to understand that from nothing, nothing comes. It is a plain and simple logical statement, classical or not is irrelevant. Nothingness cannot become actual by itself. Nothingness has no being. On its own it does not even have the potential to be something simply because nothingness has nothing. If you do not accept this, at least provide some form of logic to support it. Bringing in quantum mechanics to try and confuse quantum vacua or quantum foam or the appearance of virtual particles or whatever with pure nothingness won't help. Heck, even wiki can give you an answer:
Nothing:
Quote
Science

In mathematics, "nothing" does not have a technical meaning. The number zero is often used interchangeably with the term. It could also be said that a set contains "nothing" if and only if it is the empty set, in which case its cardinality (or size) is zero. In other words, the word "nothing" can be an informal term for an empty set.

In physics, the word nothing is not used in any technical sense either. A region of space is called a vacuum if it does not contain any matter, though it can contain physical fields. In fact, it is practically impossible to construct a region of space that contains no matter or fields, since gravity cannot be blocked and all objects at a non-zero temperature radiate electromagnetically. However, even if such a region existed, it could still not be referred to as "nothing", since it has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum.


With regards to intuitions (not logical statements), intuitions should at most be pointers to something objective and not be viewed infallible.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #41 on: September 10, 2010, 10:18:02 AM »

Nothingness cannot become actual by itself.
No, you need pabi to mold and work nothingness and form it into somethingness  Roll Eyes
Logged
Michael Meadon
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



michaelmeadon
WWW
« Reply #42 on: September 10, 2010, 15:15:10 PM »

Quote
Michael, it is not an intuition that circles are not squares or triangles have three sides, it is also not an intuition to understand that from nothing, nothing comes. It is a plain and simple logical statement, classical or not is irrelevant.


That triangles have three sides is definitional; it's a priori. It does not bear on human intuitions about the empirical world, i.e. what is a posteriori. Furthermore, the question of why there is something rather than nothing is an exceptionally complicated topic both in philosophy and cosmology. I don't know the formal literature (I've only read Nozick's Philosophical Investigations on this), so I don't presume to have a strong opinion. I'd suggest that unless you know the literature, you should rather keep quiet as well. Also, how to adequately define "nothing" is itself a complicated question: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/#TheAnyNot
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #43 on: September 10, 2010, 15:27:54 PM »

Quote
Michael, it is not an intuition that circles are not squares or triangles have three sides, it is also not an intuition to understand that from nothing, nothing comes. It is a plain and simple logical statement, classical or not is irrelevant.


That triangles have three sides is definitional; it's a priori. It does not bear on human intuitions about the empirical world, i.e. what is a posteriori. Furthermore, the question of why there is something rather than nothing is an exceptionally complicated topic both in philosophy and cosmology. I don't know the formal literature (I've only read Nozick's Philosophical Investigations on this), so I don't presume to have a strong opinion.

So why say others are confused about it? I suggest you don't say others are confused about a complicated topic of which you presume to not have strong opinions or knowledge about the formal literature. Also that "nothing comes from nothing" is also defintional and an a priori logical statement.

I'd suggest that unless you know the literature, you should rather keep quiet as well. Also, how to adequately define "nothing" is itself a complicated question: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/#TheAnyNot

I am familiar with the Aristotelian-Thomistic view and definition of nothingness so we can proceed from there if you like.

Logged
Michael Meadon
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



michaelmeadon
WWW
« Reply #44 on: September 10, 2010, 18:31:49 PM »

Quote
So why say others are confused about it? I suggest you don't say others are confused about a complicated topic of which you presume to not have strong opinions or knowledge about the formal literature. Also that "nothing comes from nothing" is also defintional and an a priori logical statement.

I'm not metaphysician, nor do I know the this literature, but my philosophy degree equips me to spot nonsense when I see it.

Quote
I am familiar with the Aristotelian-Thomistic view and definition of nothingness so we can proceed from there if you like.

I'd rather chew my own arm off. That Thomists still exist is an indictment of philosophy.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.571 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page May 12, 2019, 09:16:02 AM
Privacy Policy