/sci/ - Science & Math

I thought that the laws of physics were entirely local.

>>1692013
what's your point OP

That'll sure shut them up.

>Implying that this is relevant too anyone with an understanding of Aquinas

Man, I fucking hate Dawkins.

Fuck his bullshit, of course there was a creator.

>Dawkins
>Hawking

Fuck that cripple cunt. Of course God, the Creator exists.

I'm going to pirate that book coz i'm a poorfag :( Can't afford to pay 17 USD for a book.

Stephen Hawking could kick all of your asses with SCIENCE. From a wheelchair and using only his eyes.

He's also been in space. What have you done with your life?

>>1692055

Let's listen to this genius.

captcha: cablut sciences

problem godfags?

Naturalism, Naturalism everywhere!

isn't it ironic that the reason I believe in god is because the universe spontaneously creates itself

>>1692086
Believe in god weather you want to or not, but I'm with dawkins here, Its religions that are the problem, You can believe in a god and or gods without religion.

>>1692090
Im not religious im a deist

>>1692013

the universe is called universe, not god

>>1692067

At least I can throw a punch

I'm sick of people thinking Hawking is some sort of oracle just because he's a physics genius. His opinions on extraterrestrial life are just not that important. Neither are his opinions on the existence of God. And while I agree that communication is important, Pink Floyd didn't need to put that silly quote of his in that song.

I agree with him, but it sounds like he's purposefully being controversial in order to sell his book. A brilliant and famous physicist confidently saying that there is no god is bound to get a lot of attention and sales.

Reminds me of Stephen Colbert's hilarious interview with Dawkins.

Colbert: Is Hawking going to hell too?
Dawkins: I would assume so. (laughs)
Colbert: Yeah, God doesn't like black holes.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/76821/october-17-2006/richard-dawkins

>>1692013
Errr Stephen Hawking has concluded? but Stephen Hawking is a deist.

'Spontaneous creation' is pretty unsatisfying.

Actually the whole statement
>Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing
is quite unconvincing.

>“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing

I don't understand this.

>>1692436
Well if you want satisfaction and science can't give that to you, then go fap and shove a rake up your ass until you taste the lawn.

>>1692444

You wouldn't.

>>1692467
Do you?

Nobody else notice Hawking is now basically repeating what Susskind has been saying for a long time? Namely that physics and the origins of existence come from some physical equivalent to evolution that hasn't yet been properly explained? That's what Hawking is saying - that the only reason we are around to question how we got here is a result of a narrow chance. At least that's what I read into it. Either way I found it incredibly disappointing, like Hawking just read his first textbook on evolution.

Wow this conclusion could have been postulated ever since they discovered the big bang.
Seems like all pop sci scientist are jumping on the god band wagon in order to sell books
I don't know why he needs the money though, is he like going to add some bling to his wheelchair?
How about he answers why there are laws of physics to begin with

I'm not religious, but some would probably say that it was God who created the condition that the birth of the universe required.

this could just be one page of the book that the media has manipulated into making it look like this is what the whole book is about. Fuck I hate the fucking media

The twist is that Hawking himself is god

>How about he answers why there are laws of physics to begin with

>implying the answer is God

we're gonna have to fucking build hawking a metal body before he dies, so he can better explain the universe for us... fuck, i love that guy.

hawking is just bitter because God made his body inferior because he knew Hawking would ultimately try to deny him.

>>1692585

if it was like that, he'd be a satanist or something, not a astrophysicist

>>1692571
Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first bionic man. Stephen Hawking will be that man; better than he was before. Better, stronger, faster."

This Dawkins is a very silly man but he is good in self promotion. Look at his face.I would like to see he debating with Newton, Leibniz and Pythagoras about the existence of God (of course he is a very small person compared to these giants).

>>1692594

i think they weren't much larger that we are now

So where did that Laws of Physics come from, that demand the creation of a universe who, through the Laws of Physics again, lead to sentient life?

Hawking is not so genius as people think. why he cannot cure himself using his intelligence?

>>1692594
Newton was an alchemist and pretty insane (maybe due to heavy metal intoxication)

Oh Hai!

>>1692597
If we were so smart now why we are destroying the earth with such intensity? We hardly can reconstruc the pyramid with our modern tools.

Al Khalili, pop sci dude just had an attempt on his ass by some bibletard on the bbc... bibletard didn't take the hawking thing very well, khalili was super-chilled about it.

WINGS OF SCIENCE STEEL!

>>1692614
A genius needs to be insane otherwise he would not to be a genius. He would be a guy next door.

>>1692594
Maybe Dawkin's is... but it's Hawking who wrote the book

OP did not create this thread ! ! !

there even isn`t scientific evidence that OP exists.

If you claim there is, prove me and don`t come up with philosophy shit. I want hard evidence with source using the sceintific method to prove that you,op and this thread exist. Before we discuss anything else.

And yet, we all know this thread and OP do exist. WHY ? ? ?

BECAUSE SCEINCE IS NOT THE HIGHEST FORM OF KNOWLEDGE TO REALITY.

consciousness, common sense and "feeling" are much more reliable and usefull sources of information.

>>1692671
>OP did not create this thread ! ! !
OP did create this thread, by definition of OP.

>know a creationist
>respects Hawking though he incorrectly uses him as THE authority for all of science
>always uses him against me "S.H. said we don't know how the universe got here, it was on the Discovery Channel."
>read this
>my face

>>1692677

GOD did create this universe, by definition of GOD.

>>1692685

maybe hawking is the master troll

>>1692694

No a pink unicorn invented the universe. You can't prove me wrong Your god is false, enjoy your eternity in the cell.

>>1692013
>Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing
>Because there is a law such as gravity
>Because there is a law
>a law

Who created this law?
Laws are a form of intelligence.
Intelligent creation.
Get it?

>>1692694
Now how do you show this is at all related to the other common definitions of "god"? Because a plain definition with zero properties applying to it is rather useless.

>>1692671

Lol, you know this thread exist and was created by OP because you can observe it. Observation is the most important aspect of science.

Consciousness just allows us to know things, it has nothing to do with finding truth.

Common sense is a form of logic, another very important aspect of science.

And "feeling" is just stupid. In the context of this thread you were just referring to your feeling of common sense. But feeling is one of the worst ways to find truth. I could come up with 1000 examples of why feeling is extremely susceptible to being false, but, its not worth it.

>>1692702
people who have experienced god: Billions
people who have seen ghosts:millions
people who have experience or seen a pink unicorn:zero
FAIL

>>1692710
is anyone going to attempt to refute this? because if not, i'll assume dawkins statement is wrong. i mean you cant just say everything is the way it is because of some laws without explaining why the laws are there to begin with. seems pretty logical to me. would be happily corrected.

btw im atheist

>>1692722

You can't see him. He's invisible. You can only experience his love and miracles.

>Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.
>Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.

1st Law of Thermodynamics anyone?
Eminent scientist, my ass.

>>1692734

Theres going to have to be something left unexplained. If we came up for an explanation of the laws of the universe. There would have to be some property that creates them. Then you could say, well explain that property.

It will only end when we find something that exists for no reason. Something that just pops into existence without a cause. Which we have already found. (quantum fluctuations)

of course you can ask, what causes there to be quantum fluctuations, and perhaps there is an answer, yet again, youll still be able to ask the same question to the answer you find.

>>1692736
are you implying that go is a pink unicorn?
Maybe he is, he could be anything really

I just saw this being covered on Aljazeera with an interview with a cosmologist. The interviewer twice asked about H changing his mind and the cosmologist twice said H did not, and he always believed that the universe does not need a creator.

>>1692710
>Laws are a form of intelligence

er no, laws are just laws, unbreakable facts about how the universe works, and the formulas we write about them are just our best approximation of them

ITT: insecure and butthurt christians

>>1692745
>Doesn't understand or hasn't read the laws of thermodynamics

>>1692748

No. The difference is that God isn't real. The pink unicorn is.

>>1692762
Nigger please.
>Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only change states.
Are you saying it changed states from nothing to everything?

>>1692747
exactly. and I guess you could take that to the next level and say well if there is a god then why is he there to begin with, was there something else before god that caused the creation of god? nothing really makes sense. or maybe its just us that can't understand. maybe our brains are bound to logic and reasoning and we cant comprehend other types of ideas. i guess we will get some answers when we die.

>>1692768
>Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only change states.
I think you mean
>ENERGY can neither be created nor destroyed, only change states.

>Doesn't understand or hasn't read the laws of thermodynamics

>>1692768
sum of all the energy in universe is exactly zero. so it does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

>>1692759
but how do you have laws and rules without intelligence to decide on what the rules are going to be? its like defining the rules of a game or something, to me it seems like there has to be some deliberate thought and intelligence behind it all. i mean, why have any rules at all, what would a universe be like without ANY rules at all. the concept doesnt even make sense.

God created the universe from the substance of his mind (prana, fifth element, ether). Why did He did so? Some philosophes (Hegel) say that He needs to know himself and as He is infinite the creation is infinite -( it didn't started sometime ). If you get a samadhi you get rid of the discussion about the existence of God.

infinite regress, infinite regress everywhere

>>1692791

How can you have intelligence if there are no physical laws to create it? If there were no physical laws, then you couldnt have any form of intelligence. Physical law must precede intelligence.

>>1692791
>but how do you have laws and rules without intelligence to decide on what the rules are going to be?
you don't need intelligence for physical laws to exist.
however, you need physical laws for intelligence to exist.

i love god, and god loves me.

>>1692801
Yeah, I see your logic. It is sound. But, we're assuming here that laws are 100% necessary. The idea I'm playing around with is that intelligence can exist on its own without laws to define how the intelligence works. In other words, it would be some form of pure essence that does things for a particular reason without being bound by rules of any kind. Does that make sense lol probably not.

I just think there is more, there has got to be more than just this boring universe and its boring rules and our boring way of interpreting it all.

This isn't really related but one thing I can't understand the logic of is music. I mean, why the hell would we extract such complex emotions from just patterns of vibrations in the air. Makes absolutely no sense.

Like, if you play one note on its own, it has no emotion associated with it at all. But if you play at least 2 notes they contrast against eachother and all of a sudden you feel an emotional response. That alone is just too bizarre to be rationalised logically. Or maybe it can be, but I haven't heard any supporting arguments.

>>1692819
When I was little, I had imaginary friends, too.

>>1692871
conditioning. You learn to associate certain melodies with emotions.

>>1692871
>we don't know how it works.
>thus god did it.

>>1692874

wtf u @ nigga?

>>1692013

Fuck you.

>>1692819
So what have you done to ease the suffering of others like that child in the picture you posted?

>>1692013

FUCK YOU, Here is the original... I made this motivator myself.

And you know mine includes more true but you are just plain evil inside.

>>1692013

So? As far as I know Hawking is not omniscient.

>Just as Darwinism removed the need for a creator in the sphere of biology

Isn't Darwinism about Evolution? What does that have to do with Abiogenesis?! Is everybody going mad?

>have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.

As far as I know universe out or nothing or not there still need to be preexisting conditions in an "outer universe" for that to happen so I don't see the redundancy?!

Somebody posted in another thread about Hawking - maybe he's been dead for years and the machine is doing the thinking for him. The body is just a puppet.

I'm not going to believe anything from a Dawkins site. However, if there is a quantum vacuum state, there's not nothing. If there is gravity, there's not nothing. If Haking can't figure that out, then the gay has made it to his brain.

>>1692948
>>DUURRR I dont agree with hawking that means he must be stupid not me.
This is why no one takes people like you seriously, not only are they willfully ignorant, they cant ever fucking drop the argument from authority bullshit, and resort to adhominem and responding to tone fallacies like nobodies buisness.

>>1692964
But you're the one arguing from authority.

>>1692722
>people who have experienced god: Billions
>people who have seen ghosts:millions
>people who have experience or seen a pink unicorn:zero

Exactly. Not a single person on earth has ever seen the invisible pink unicorn, thereby confirming his invisibility. And naturally, if something is invisible, as has been confirmed, it must exist. (Something non existent wouldn't be invisible, simply non-present)

Therefore:
>people who have experienced one non-unicorn god or another: Billions
>people who have seen ghosts:millions
>people who have experienced the pink unicorn's invisibility:Every person to ever live

>>1692948
>there's not nothing if there is a god

or does god 'transcend' nothing?

>>1692918
No, I don't think it's conditioning. Two or three notes played one after the other or all together have a certain innate emotional response which every person experiences the same way. Everybody agrees that certain chords or scales have a certain feel to them. Where did these feelings come from? What are they based on? What is this "conditioning" you speak of?

>>1692924
I never said god did it, you ignoramus.

>>1692971

>And naturally, if something is invisible, as has been confirmed, it must exist. (Something non existent wouldn't be invisible, simply non-present)

wtf lol

>>1692971
You are now officially my hero. :)

I have seen the invisible pink unicorn

this is proof it does not exist

>>1693007
If you've seen a pink unicorn, it can't have been the invisible one due to it being invisible. You must be mistaken. The proof of His existence still stands.

>>1692977
We don;t understand the brain. I'm sure there's a very simple explanation for it.

>>1692937
WTF U @ NIGGA?!

rule fucking 1: maek sense

>>1693011
thus the visible pink unicorn disappears in a puff of logic...becoming invisible

>>1692947
They machine has taken over. He no longer talks through, It talks by itself. WOAH. Fucking crazy shit man.

>>1692977
Practically everyone agrees flowers are beautiful. For the longest time we had no idea why.

Turns out, flowers tend to mean there will be prey animals nearby. Humans who were attracted to flowers ate better and, on average, had more children.

"Beauty" is not an innate property of the universe; it's a property of human brains.

>>1693021
>I'm sure there's a very simple explanation for it.

Just as I'm sure there's a very simple explanation for the universe: god created it. (not that I believe this)

most things considered beautiful have underlying mathematical harmony, including musical harmony vs dissonance

throw in some synesthesia, golden ratio, 4/4 beat or tempo matching the heart rate and it makes a kind of sense

>>1692971
The pink unicorn serves no purpose though, where as God does
People have prayed to god and have been cured from otherwise fatal illnesses, the same can't be said about your pink unicorn that you've never seen and made up on the spot

This song put me in a trance recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sICf0XtTokk

I literally left my mental space for a brief moment of time and lost control of my body. Wasn't on any drugs either. I would love to hear science's explanation for that! (not that I'm saying one doesn't exist, just that I would love to hear it)

>>1693064
>>1693064
which god?

where does he get his purpose from?

their prayers were answered by the IPU since

>>1693064
The invisible pink unicorn was actually the one answering all those prayers. He just felt bad for all the people pray to non-existent gods, you see.

>>1693105
Shit nigger, I had the same theory.
The entire universe was created by 5 extremely wise unicorns.
I said nothing about their colour though.
We should get together and publish our theory.

>>1692977
As far as musical aesthetics are concerned, Pythagoras did an experiment through which he concluded that an octave is a ration of 2:1, and 5th 2:3, and a 4th 3:4 (off the top of my head, numbers might be off). As the Greeks were obsessed with numbers, they used these ratios to explain why these intervals sounded the most consonant. During the middle ages, these same intervals (Perfect 4th,5th,8th) were the basis of all musical theory, which was the beginning of the long road leading to our understanding of music now.

Also, certain modes (ionian, dorian, phrygian, mixolydian, etc), were described to inflict certain emotions on the ethos of human beings. Thus, Plato (iirc) postulated that all music should be performed in the dorian and phrygian modes.

>I don't know the musical modes, I said, but leave us that mode that would fittingly imitate the utterances and the accents of a brace man who is engaged in warfare or in any enforced business, and who, when he has failed, either meeting wounds or death or having fall into some mishap, in all these conditions confronts fortune with steadfast endurance and repels her strokes. And another for such a man engaged in works of peace, not enforced by voluntary, either trying to persuade somebody of something and imploring him-whether it be a god, through prayer, or a man, by teaching and admonition-or contrariwise yielding himself to another who is petitioning him or teaching him or trying to change his opinions, and in consequence faring according to his wish, and not beaing himself arrogant, but in all this acting modestly and moderately and acquiescing in this outcome. Leave us these two modes-the enforced and the voluntary-that will best imitate the utterances of men failing or succeeding, the temperate, the brace-leave us these.

-Plato, Republic 398d-399c.

>>1693115

why 5? i think its 7 because its a prime number

there are only three threads that are live right now.
pens, science fiction, and this.
I don't really mind the first two.

>>1693158

i think i love you

>>1693158
5 is a prime number too, plus you can count it on one hand.

>>1693178

oh shit i fucked up, well i guess 5 is a good round number.

on an unrelated note, when changing the volume on my tv i have to leave it in a multiple of 5 or a prime number, any other value really bothers me.

>>1693148

The scalar modes we have today are completely different to the mode of the time. There was a period probably about 400 years ago when the theory was confused, maybe to do with church music.

>>1693178

hmm, yes i do agree. however, with the prime 7 you count this on 2 hands.


think about it.

>>1693189
This is because the Unicorn Gods demand it.
Well, they don't demand it, they're actually quite benevolent when it comes to the whole free will thing, despite the omnipotence they wield.
CHRISTIANS - 0
UNICORNISTS - 9000

But who was pho...

I mean who wrote the laws? Scientists can predict and examine the laws of physics, but there are no explanations of fundamental laws, only descriptions and definitions.

So who was law?

>>1693178
>>1693197
you can count to seven on one hand if you have a better short term memory than a spastic fish

>>1693202
Have you not been following this thread?
The 5 Great Pink Invisible Unicorn Gods.
They set the universe in motion, developed thermodynamics and used the Christfag "Forbidden fruit" to bake an apple pie (Crumbly, but good) and explain to Adam about atoms.

>>1693208

and one to make the magnets work

>>1693190
Flipping through one of my music history textbooks here, and you're right. In fact, the latter half of the modes all are hypo- modifcations of the first half, however the irony here is that:

present | Greek
Ionian | Lydian
Dorian | Phrygian
Phrygian | Dorian

So in effect, it's still Phrygian and Dorian, they're just reversed. I guess I danced around the point being that Greek philosophers and music theorists were aware of the effects music had on peoples' emotions, and their discoveries would later effect Medieval and Renaissance composers, thus effecting us. So it's, to some degree conditioning that music as we know it today can be traced back to Greek culture, but credence must also be given to their original discovery of musical emotional effect was present before theorists attempted to quantity it.

Actually, I'd like to point out something here.

from the article
>>But, Hawking argues, if there are untold numbers of planets in the galaxy, it's less remarkable that there's one with conditions for human life. And, indeed, he argues, any form of intelligent life that evolves anywhere will automatically find that it lives somewhere suitable for it.

Which is patently obvious. The deterministic view of any specific entity with no other scale by which to measure will be that their state of being is the natural state of life.

>>From there he introduces the idea of multiple universes, saying that if there are many universes, one will have laws of physics like ours -- and in such a universe, something not only can, but must, arise from nothing. Therefore, he concludes, there's no need for God to explain it.

However he's missing an important Corollary to this postulation. If we're talking about multitudes of possible universes in which we explore all possible combinations of probable outcomes, if you postulate the existence of at least one universe wherein everything exist as he describes, as a theoretical everything out of nothing state, then so too you have the other end of this spectrum, an everything out of something state, since we are exploring all possible universe states. In short, in a set of infinite variation, all variations will exist, including a universe in which God exists. And if you're going to go down this road, you've essentially proved that God MUST exist. Maybe not in this universe, but in at least one of the infinite universes which he postulates do exist. Which raises the question of, is THIS the universe in which God must exist? And if not, how would be know it to be a universe wherein God does not exist since his presence would by definition be the current state of universal being.

>>1693260
Just sat and read that.
re-read it and tried to understand the full implications.

Mind blown by the possibilities

>>1693260
>In short, in a set of infinite variation, all variations will exist
This is why you're wrong. It's an excusable error, but still wrong. There are infinite primes greater than 2, but none of them will ever be even.

>>1693293
No, actually you're incorrect.

The definition of prime is automatically exclusionary of any prime being even because the definition of even requires divisibility by 2.

To be analogous to what you are describing, his definition of a universe not needing God would be the isolation of a "all from nothing" universe of an infinite set of universes defined by the exclusion of the existence of God.

He never set the non-existence of God as a criteria though. So we're talking about an infinite set of potential universes with the same physical laws as our own, period. There is no exclusionary criteria regarding the existence or nonexistence of God as a factor. Only that it has the same physical laws as our own.

>>1693293

i know what you meant but.... 3,5,7,11,13

>>1693260
still never got this whole something from nothing shit. Pre-big bang nothing breaks Heisenberg doesn't it?

We got Hawking radiation... away from black holes..

What happens to the other particle from H rad, it gets fucked off over an event horizon? What happens to that little fucker? Bet after a while it's been fucked into a bunch of little bits that from THAT side look like a new fucking universe

>>1693320
Actually I thought the point was that we're describing universes with different physical laws.

In any case, it was a simplified example. You can have infinite universes just by letting the fine structure constant be any value between .007297352537 and .007297352538. None of these are going to give rise to a trans-universal God.

An infinite number of universes does not automatically imply all universes.

>>1693327
That's sort of the whole point. We don't know. In fact the sheer amount of stuff we don't know, and that we don't know that we don't know is monumentally bigger than what we DO know (or think that we do know, but don't know that we're wrong)

But human beings are incredibly arrogant and won't admit that we might be wrong until we get slapped square in the face about it.

I mean look at newtonian physics, people were CERTAIN that it was the end all be all of physics for decades, till along came the relativistic universe, which shattered that.

Take fractals for example. When Mandlebrot introduced fractals and showed what "the monsters" really were suddenly whole new realms of mathematics were opened up. But until then we had no idea that they even existed as mathematical discriptors of the natural world. Who knows what we might discover tomorrow that will toss centuries of "knowledge" on the scrap heap as wrong, in the same way that phrenology and other quackeries that were once considered science were proven to be wrong.

>>1693371

Wasn't asking 'how can something come from nothing'

More 'Heisenberg pwns nothing, now give me the fucking money'

lulz

What if another dimensional being is the one responsible for controlling the third dimension?
We could control two dimensional beings if they existed...

>>1693353 Actually I thought the point was that we're describing universes with different physical laws.

Well I am unsure how you reached that conclusions, especially when the quoted section states

>>saying that if there are many universes, one will have laws of physics like ours
>>one will have laws of physics like ours.
>>like ours

Maybe you just misread what I quoted. No foul.

>>An infinite number of universes does not automatically imply all universes.

Well that's the beauty of the concept of Infinity. That a subset of an infinite set is still infinite or simply so large as to encompass a set so large as to defy our limited imagination.

This is honestly why I think his delving into the many universes theory sort of invalidates or seriously weakens his argument. When you ascribe to the many universes theory you open up whole realms of fairytale land physics that have no place in hard science.

Ok /sci/ I know you're imagination is pretty limited but I'm going to suggest a scenario
What would happen if a fifth dimensional being visited the earth?

>including a universe in which God exists
poor reasoning

>>1693293
forget primes, I would put it more like

1,2,3,4,5,6,7.... GOD, 43,44,45

or 3,5,7,11,13,17,GOD,19,23

itwhich number is unknowable, but god doesnt even fit

>>1693293
That's why such numbers are called sometimes called "transfinite" rather than "infinite".

>>1692430
No, it's pretty common knowledge that Hawking is atheist. Especially now with this.

>>1693483
They wouldn't be on earth, nor would they likely be viewable to us.

GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE SO THAT IT WOULD UNFOLD LIKE IT HAS DONE

JESUS FUCK ARE YOU THAT STUPID?!

>>1693619They wouldn't be on earth, nor would they likely be viewable to us.

Have you read flatland?

Specifically have you considered the implications of what a three dimensional creature would look like to flatlanders?

Let's say you entered flatland. You walked in. The flatlanders would see a pair of strange expanding and contracting and disappearing shapes (your feet as they touch and lift off the surface of their world as your feet press down and lift off the surface in pressure patterns.
Let's say you get down on all fours, suddenly there's the impression of your knees, your toes, your palms, your fingers, all dozens if not hundreds of points of contact, all of which to flat landers would look like dozens or hundreds of individual 2 dimensional beings, but would in fact all be you.

A 4th dimensional being would intersect our universe but would be able to do all sorts of crazy ass things.

For example a three dimensional being might be able to pick up a 2 dimension being and fold him in half like paper without hurting him. Or crumple him into a ball an then drop him back onto the 2 d world surface and he'd be a scattering of little points with most of his actual being out of phase of touch with the 2d surface.

A 4d being could turn a human being inside out likely with no actual harm to them, or do ridiculously impossible things.

a 5th dimensional being would be whole orders of ridiculous beyond that.

>>1693819

Someone's been watching Carl Sagan.

>>1692734
>laws are created as a form of intelligence

This statement isn't useful, because of several reason. Also it is probably wrong, because of another reason.

First, in order for this statement to have any debatable meaning, one would have to clearly define what is a law and what is intelligence, since this is not trivial. One problem would certainly be that the definition for intelligence could not contain or be based on any "laws" itself, if laws are supposed to be the result of intelligence.

Second, the statement is very arbitrary and neither a necessary consequence of anything observable, nor a proven conclusion of any valid and significant theoretic premise. At least I don't see why it should be.

Third, I will not be able to formally show the incorrectness of the statement, since we don't have a framework and I'm probably not smart enough, but I know from Chaos Theory that in dynamic systems (like reality most certainly is one, and itself consists of many) there may exist so called `fix points`. These points are reached under many different starting conditions, and are not left once they are reached. There is no "law" that causes this (other than the laws of simple algebra). In other words, this means that comparable systems may transform into the same state, even if they intially differ. These systems are things that could get very complex, and one could consider that the transformation of many different complex things into the same end result means that they follow a rule or a law, but there is no such thing, other than the formular itself to whom the systems work.

>>1693819
Why the hell should Flatland have any application here? It was a fictional story about beings that didn't even exist. You wouldn't know how anything would appear to a being in another dimension, it's just impossible to observe.

>>1693908

It's a pretty good analogy. 2D to 3D is something we can comprehend easily, and helps ease in the idea of 3D to 4D.

the year is 2010.

people still believe in "god".

people who think scientific and teleological thinking are mutually exclusive understand neither

IDIOTS FUCKING IDIOTS EVERYWHERE

HAWKING SAID, I QUOTE
>"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going,"

THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS SAYING "THERE IS NO GOD" YOU RETARDS, THINK ABOUT IT. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO ABANDON YOUR BELIEFS.

/cruise control

>>1693980

People who think scientific and theological thinking are two sides to the same coin dont understand science

I have a hard time believing any of you are older than 20 if you are still so involved in the GOD IS NOT REAL debate. Who cares?

>>1693994

I wasnt aware that Dawkins was actually a 12 year old boy.

I've been on /sci/ for three fucking days and I officially hate theists and atheists alike. Where did you get the impression anyone gives a flying fuck what you think about it?

>>1694016

Clearly you do since yous angsty

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/02/stephen-hawking-picks-physics-god-big-bang/

read the comments for atomic rage

>>1693929
exactly. Flatland is mean to show you an easily understandable analogy.

Because we're 3d beings we understand 3 dimensions intuitively. We can also imagine what it would be to be a 2d being introduced to 3d space. That same sense of awe and wonder going from a 2d to 3d perspective and understanding would be the same as a 3d being going to 4d understanding.

If you can't wrap your head around why it is appropriate here, then your understanding of what it says is limited to say the least.

>>1693986
/this
tl;dr physics put the nails in the coffin evolution built.
1. god is not implied by the universe
2. god is not necessary for the universe

could one still believe in god? yes, it won't be empirical and it will barely be quasi-rational.

>>1694013
I already know Dawkins is immature in this way, but I find it strange that so many of you care especially when some of you claim to be grad students, which are generally far ahead of this sort of angry mindset

>>1694048
God is still needed to create the laws of Gravity and quantum dynamics. All Hawing said was that the universe would arise from those things.

>>1693992
science is an epistemology that satisfies certain types of questions. it has a claim over the objective, the verifiable, and conclusions reached through experimentation. this is what scientific thinking unquestionably and rightfully owns.

however, there are multiple epistemologies you can invoke to answer questions yuo have about the nature of things- because replicable experiments have no social component, they eliminate the phenomenological and experiential aspects of being. while the meanings ascribed to these facets of life are arbitrary, relative, and subjective, they are integral parts of the human experience that, i think, deserve to be reflected upon and contemplated. if you find god in the process, that's fine- just don't think that what your notion of the divine is can counteract science.

hence, by compartmentalizing different epistemologies to explain different aspects of being, we come to a fuller understanding of our experiences as well as the world around us.

>>1694048
I find it strange when you guys throw around the word rational. There is no inherent rationality. Are the followers of one theory that ends up being horribly wrong necessarily irrational? Further complications ensue if we then begin to analyze logic and the nature of knowledge.

>>1693994
i care, as long as there are people older than 12 who still believe in fairy tales.

>>1694078
>Are the followers of one theory that ends up being horribly wrong necessarily irrational?
Not if they switch to the better theory when it horribly disproves the old theory.
That's why evolutionists are rational and creationists aren't.
Furthermore you can perfectly rationally reach the wrong conclusion from incomplete or erroneous evidence. That's why rationality includes always being aware of the error of your estimate and the imperative to keep testing your beliefs and weighing them against empirical evidence.

>>1694071
>God is still needed to create the laws of Gravity and quantum dynamics
laws of physics can't appear spontaneously, but god can? why?

or, if god always existed, why couldn't that be the case for laws of physics as well?

>>1694091
i care, as long as there are people older than 12 who still believe in communism.
i care, as long as there are people older than 12 who still believe in racism.
i care, as long as there are people older than 12 who still believe in <something I don't agree with for good reason>.

Aren't there more constructive topics to be discussed and solved before we tackle infinity?

Huurrr
>dawkins is not a theologist, so he is not an authority on religion
>hawking is not a theologist so he is not an authority on the need for a creator
>etc

These people are world class scientists, with a fuckload more knowledge in EVERY scientific field than 99% of theists have in any field.

Hawking is a theoretical physicist, hence he spends rather a lot of time thinking about the beginning of the universe you dumb fuck.

Show me some decent credentials of creation myth supporters.

>>1694131
because then what daddy taught me when I was young is all lies and I'm scared of dying.

>>1694721
lookup 'Courtiers reply' best response to the "not a theologan not qualified" nonsense

>>1694721
>Show me some decent credentials of creation myth supporters.

For fuck's sake man they read the bible like a HUNDRED times.

>>1694779
>For fuck's sake man they read the bible like a HUNDRED times.

If they did they wouldn't be creationist. Shit is full of errors and plot-holes.

>>1694787
You're a moron if you think the typical creationist doesn't know the bible forward and backward.

HAWKING SAID IT

I BELIEVE IT

THAT SETTLES IT

>>1692013
ANOTHER FLAWLESS VICTORY FOR ATHEISM

>>1694795
You're a moron if you think they do. The typical creationist goes to church once a week and feels a vague sense of support for Christianity, but can't be bothered to, say, not eat oysters. Most creationists are average people raised in ignorance.

>>1694865
>>1694795
Third party here. Creationists I've come in contact with are of two stripes, typically: newfags who don't know shit about the bible, and fags that practically have it memorized save for the stuff they never quote. The former are obviously ignorant, the latter aren't as ignorant they just don't bother to honestly and rationally think about what they swallow and regurgitate.

>>1694865
No. You are a moron, because you're willing to speak about things you have no knowledge of.

STEPHEN HAWKING: 1
CHRISTIANS: 0
CHRISTFAG STATUS?
FUCKING TOLD

>>1694847

+1

Circular logic is circular.

"Because there is a law such as gravity"
"How is there such law?"
"Because there is a universe"
"How is there such universe?"
"Because there is a law such as gravity"

This doesn't prove or disprove God, Spontaneous Creation, or Left Socks. It does nothing.