[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 222 KB, 480x412, tarah-rogers-champagne_lead.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3529535 No.3529535 [Reply] [Original]

WE DID IT GUYS, WE FINALLY DID IT, SCIENCE BEAT RELIGION

Just finished watching Curiosity: Did God Create The Universe, in which Stephen Hawkins comes to the conclusion that the universe's spontaneous appearance can and is explained by the current laws of physics and requires no creator, and one is not possible

WE KNOW HOW THE FUCKING UNIVERSE CAME INTO EXISTANCE

WE DID IT /SCI/, THE HUMAN RACE FUCKING DID IT

>> No.3529549
File: 3 KB, 210x230, 1306097177782.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3529549

It wont change anything. It will never change. In a perfect world there is no religion, as it has zero value, and potentially causes harm, but it will never change.

ever.

>> No.3529550

All Stephen Hawking did was to make a bare assertion. Gee, I wish I'd have thought of that. It turns out all you need to do is say "X is explained by the laws of physics" and it becomes true, without your having provided any explanation or inference. Genius!

>> No.3529552

If this board is not excited there is no hope for 4chan, if there ever was

>> No.3529557

>>3529535
Ah, just a minute there old chap. And other inhabitable dimension where time is not even used as there are or is something else employed that would be considered by us to be a much higher functioning than time itself?

He doesn't quite finish the job. He just makes a wonderful wild angry theory. In which he attempts to prove there isn't a God because he is stuck in that tiny little chair. And science can't save his stupid ass. I mean really let's at least be honest with ourselves about this for a moment shall we?

>> No.3529558

>>3529550
Actually it is entirely explained in detail, please state what you don't understand

Also, it is well understood time began at the big bang, so there is no place for the causal action of god creating it

>> No.3529562

>>3529557
10/10
You forgot the physics is useless with the rest of your troll
boomroasted.jpg

>> No.3529565

>>3529557

Impersonator.

>> No.3529566

>>3529535
Great, what's the evidence for that?

>> No.3529568

>>3529562
Clearly you're just a biologist. How could we ever come to trust some piss poor tier such as yourself?

>> No.3529572

>>3529568

If you're going to impersonate Coffee you might as well read his Green Oval posts or some shit. *sigh*

>> No.3529587

>>3529558
"Time began at the big bang" is a homunculus argument, because the incipiency implied by "beginning" requires time itself. All you've done is nested "time" inside a larger "time." Where is the time for God to create the universe? You provided it yourself, within your own statement.

>> No.3529591
File: 29 KB, 640x480, 1308630170011..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3529591

>>3529572

>> No.3529589

People will still refuse to realize that god is a hoax, no matter what evidence we shove up their buuts

>> No.3529590

>>3529565
>>3529566
>>3529568
>>3529572

>Time (causality) begin at big bang
>God caused them

computerviocegeneratinglaughinghawkins.jpg

>> No.3529594

>>3529587
Okay let me rephrase, time did not exist before the big bang, any understanding of physics here?

>> No.3529603

>>3529587
A nested time doesn't require divine, supernatural powers to incidence

>> No.3529610

>>3529594
>Okay let me rephrase, time did not exist before the big bang, any understanding of physics here?

Your word "before" contains another implicit invocation of time, committing the same logical error as your first claim.

Bear in mind that what you say could well be true (and is, as far as we understand with the relationship of space and time) but it does not dispose of the ultimate question of causality. The fallacious homunculus argument is introduced by the specific form of the argument you're making. I don't dispute the science at all.

>> No.3529611

>>3529603
>>3529603
>>3529603
This, humans finally understand the beginning of the universe and trolls everywhere

>> No.3529613

As long as there are anomalies people will have a reason to look to a god and ask how is this possible.

>> No.3529615

>Bear in mind that what you say could well be true (and is, as far as we understand with the relationship of space and time)

Wait, so you want an awnser as to what caused causality?

>> No.3529619

>>3529610
Also, it's simply a language error, we don't have language to indicate non-time

>> No.3529621

>>3529615
I never said that. I had hoped we wouldn't have to stoop to this level, where you just put words in my mouth.

>> No.3529623

>>3529615
Yeah I kinda want some physics, really.

>> No.3529631

>>3529535
Not a closed ontolology, also circular.
That said, ``God'' is a very poor reason for all of it.
Better possibilities:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704009
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0011122
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510188
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Mathematical_Monism

http://lesswrong.com/lw/uk/beyond_the_reach_of_god/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1zt/the_mathematical_universe_the_map_that_is_the/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/qr/timeless_causality/

Your existence is an inevitable mathematical fact.

>> No.3529634

Are there honestly people who believe that if we somehow discovered exactly how the universe came into existence, we would all be finding out about it through a prerecorded appearance by Stephen Hawking on the Discovery Channel?

>> No.3529635

>>3529619
You can't make a bad argument and rehabilitate it by saying "language is insufficient to express my real argument." I'm not obliged to have faith in the argument that language has supposedly rendered you unable to provide.

>> No.3529637

>>3529615
>>3529623
>>3529621
Just kidding, I'm simply using ad homenium since I don't fully understand the physics and mathematics myself, but if the general concensus is that there was a beginning of time, there has got to be some backing mathematically to it, that's simply how the scientific community functions

>> No.3529647

>>3529610
Are you implying that it is impossible for time to have a beginning?

>> No.3529648

>>3529634
I did, little too hopeful in retrospect, in all fairness, sceintific awareness isn't exactly peaked in my country

>america

>> No.3529654

>>3529647
>>3529647
I'm against this guy as well, but can someone explain that a little further, or is simply only understandable in terms of mathematics

>> No.3529671

>>3529634
Lawrence Krauss did a lecture on this a few years ago. These docs are just for the casuals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Quotable part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfOL_oGgRVk

>> No.3529678

Where's a link to this video?

Is it on YouTube or do I have to torrent it?

>> No.3529683

>>3529678
It just aired about 2 hours ago. There should be a torrent before morning.
YouTube varies.

>> No.3529685

>>3529647

what is time?

Not being a smart ass but isn't it some abstract concept that can change depending on the situation.

like light speed or in a black hole or any other abnormal curveture of time.

>> No.3529690

>>3529678
This show just aired, so is wait a couple hours before either videos or torrents sprout up. I actually watched it, and was so pissed that they scheduled a show immediately after the show trying to prove god could exist so Christfags wouldnt burn down their headquarters

>> No.3529691

I like the idea of "it'd be better to believe in some divine being and be right, than believe in nothing, and be wrong."

>> No.3529693

>>3529558
multiverse/sea of bubbles/m theory/etc.
universe was created when m-branes collided in another dimension. time exists in a way that actions can take place in this dimension but everything has existed forever and new universes are created and ended over and over for ever without a start/end to this process. god could've created the first bubbles or he could just be a guy playing in a bubble bath.

tbh i don't believe that shit but your argument isn't compliant with some theories

>> No.3529695

I saw it too
So basically he said that at the beginning there was no time, then time magically appeared

>> No.3529697

>>3529685
Time is a dimension. If there was no time, there would be no movement or action.

>> No.3529698

>>3529690

http://mukki.org/tv/curiosity-s01e01-did-god-create-the-universe-720p-hdtv-x264-diverge-106592

Is it this?

>> No.3529699

>>3529691
>>3529691
>>3529691
>>3529691

PASCAL GET THE FUCK OUT

And also the guy who said time was an abstract construst

>>3529685

>> No.3529704

>>3529691
But it is very quite likely you picked the wrong god to believe in.

STFU PASCAL

>> No.3529710

>>3529549

>>religion causes zero value

lol

Religion provides peace of mind and happiness to billions of people.

I'm an athiest, but to claim that religion provides no benefit to people is foolhardy. It just doesn't provide benefit to US.

>> No.3529713

>>3529691

If there is some divine being it will be unlike anything anyone can imagine.
While I'll at least entertain the idea that there may be some divine being, religion, ALL RELIGION cannot be correct. It's too flawed

>> No.3529714

>>3529691
Might want to offer up a goat to Zeus then too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

>> No.3529717

>>3529695
but "appearing" is a process: something that takes place through time

all these arguments just create a nesting of time and ignore this higher level they implicitly invoke

>> No.3529722

>>3529691
Believing out of fear is not believing. If there is a supreme being, then he'd know you truly don't believe, and you're only doing it as insurance. Also, why would god cast you into hell, even if you devoted all your life to helping your fellow man, only to have doubt due to the fact he intrusted his entire works into a group of tribesmen thousands of years ago, which contradicts itself multiple times, with events proven historically wrong, and with no surviving original copies

>> No.3529725

>>3529717
Exactly, it makes no sense
I think this is just a stunt to sell more books

>> No.3529727
File: 14 KB, 260x300, 1246914930086.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3529727

okay someone explain this whole red/ blue shift. i've read a bunch of shit on this, but I still don't get why it happens.

you move closer to some huge gravity well that is sucking up everything. the closer you get to it, to others it looks like you stretch out and disappear. from your perspective you see them and move away from them, at a slower and slower pace the whole time, until it appears they are not moving? but....it's a fucking black hole....how could anyone go through this and experience such a phenomenon? you would just die instantly. right?

>> No.3529739

>>3529727
I think its a thought experiment
You know what scientists do to explain something in a more approachable manner but just ends up confusing the hell out of everyone

>> No.3529743

>>3529725

what does a 69 year old cripple want with money.

he can literally do nothing but think, so he does.
I'm sure he knows what he's talking about.

>> No.3529751

>>3529743
appeal to authority / pity

>> No.3529753

>>>>>>Assuming the big bang theory is correct
>>>>>>Assuming scientists will never be able to recreate a big bang in a laboratory making a big bang caused by a creator
Not saying I'm smarter than Stephen hawking or anything
Even if his conclusion could've been emotionally biased cause he's a bitter old man in a wheelchair

>> No.3529759

>>3529727


it's an analogy. he's simply describing the perspective of whatever object experiences that?

>> No.3529761

Did hawkins explain how things spontaneously appear?

Nope. He just knows that things appear because quantum bullshit. It never explains how it works

>> No.3529782

And what about the whole time stopping part? So then if it's stopped, why did it suddenly begin? Was there some sort of attraction of particles? But what determined those particles distance from each other? Did they start out close enough for this to happen instantaneously? Or did some slowly move over the other ones, and if so, what caused that push or pull? They were in a frictionless environment where they slid freely in a direction? Where did this frictionless environment come from? This topic is inexhaustible. We just can't "know" how it all began, or if it ever just began at all. What if things have just always been around and that's it? It's hard for us to imagine eternity because we as people have never experienced it ourselves. We can never grasp that concept.
And if we were to get to the edge of the expanding - or shrinking for all i know - universe, what would we find beyond it? Ahhh!!!

>> No.3529790

>>3529761
Of course he can't because that's metaphysics, but a damn good possibility is >>3529631

>> No.3529794
File: 1.00 MB, 350x191, 1311295117137.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3529794

Implying the universe spontaneously combusted would require one to admit that before the universe, time, and even all the laws that govern reality existed, that their "concept" would have been required to have been created.

How is it that the "laws" of physics are able to "be" and are able to exist to begin with? Where did time, the concept of reality, and nothingness itself come from?

Stephen Hawkings is just a sad man who will only search for and provide theories that would disprove God because of his disability issues, given that in his situation, it would easily be hard to believe. He would not go out of his set mindset to at least attempt to test his on beliefs by testing this opposite.

>>3529535

If I had a penny every time some religious atheist shouted those words, I would no longer need to work.

>> No.3529796

>>3529671
>First video
>6:04
>spit coffee all over keyboard

>> No.3529801

>>3529727
>okay someone explain this whole red/ blue shift. i've read a bunch of shit on this, but I still don't get why it happens.

Red shift happens because galaxies are moving away from us, and space is expanding, yet light speed is constant.

This expansion causes the wavelength of light to expand, creating the red shift. Think of the fabric of spacetime as a rubber band with dots of ink along it... now stretch the rubber band out, everything expands.

>> No.3529814

atheists are beyond stupid

just by believing in the big bang is believing god exists

if a single point caused everything than that point IS GOD by definition

0/10

>> No.3529815

>>3529794
>>3529631

>> No.3529816

>>3529794
Well he did say he was grateful to explore the unknown.
Also he's lived extremely long for someone with his disability.
I'd say that in itself is a miracle.

>> No.3529822

>>3529814
Simple initial state of the universe suddenly means anything more than that. No.

>> No.3529828

>>3529761

the theory has existed for years
it deals with the idea that when there is nothing anti-matter fluctuates from another dimension and disappears just as soon as it appears... or something

here
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/everything-and-nothing/

see this documentary. it's answers your question

>> No.3529835

>>3529828
>anti-matter fluctuates from another dimension

Tell me how.

>> No.3529839

Congratulations for proving that science IS a religion.

No one cares, zealot.

>> No.3529841

>>3529535
look in the dictionary the definition of theory you fag

>> No.3529856

brb, I'm going to push Stepehen Hawkins off his chair

>> No.3529860

>>3529828
this is another unavailing argument, wherein the word "nothing" is redefined to include "fluctuations"

>> No.3529863

>>3529839
>science is bad because it's a religion
>therefore religions are bad
>therefore i'll stick with christianity because it's also a religion

how is that an argument?

>> No.3529869

>>3529815

I don't think you get what >>3529794 meant by concepts.

I also do not believe you quite understand "theory"

>> No.3529870

>>3529710
no, ignorance does that.

>> No.3529876

>>3529863

>implying he even mentioned ANYTHING about Christianity and you had to be the stereotype and put words in someones mouth.

>> No.3529877

>>3529839
Science is a methodology that will work in most simple universes.
A religion can be thought of as something unfalsifiable (and thus mostly outside of science's reach). Of course, if a religion makes falsifiable claims it can be falsified (happens to most popular religions). Wether something is tue or not does not depends on wether we can find a finite proof for it or not, but we can usually find evidence that leads us to believe that something is likely true or likely false. If we used science and logical thought to reach that something is likely true, but that 'something' cannot ever be shown to be absolutely true, we can of course have an updatable belief that says that that 'something' is probably true. You can think of that as a religion, but I don't think regard it as that. Popular definitions of faith make it unamendable to reason. Having 'faith' in something because evidence points to that direction is perfectly fine (as you can change your mind if evidence says otherwise). It becomes a bit more complicated if there's no evidence that can change your mind, but luckily some such systems never lead to contradictions and thus there's no problem in believing in them, while most popular religions lead to contradiction and others try to fight against reason when they see that (which is unhealthy and harmful).

>> No.3529881

>>3529839
>>3529761
>>3529710


>Science or atheism are religions

Oh /sci/

>> No.3529886
File: 5 KB, 251x41, dirac_equation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3529886

>>3529835

>> No.3529889

>>3529860
ITT: I don't understand quantum mechanics but am still qualified to disprove it

Fuck this thread

>> No.3529891

>>3529886
>>3529886
>>3529886
My hero

>> No.3529896

>>3529860
see
>>3529886

>> No.3529899

>>3529671
>>3529671


Yeah. I thought Krauss already did this.

Did Hawkins add anything new or anything or did he just repeat everything Krauss said already?

>> No.3529904

>>3529886
Why does that math problem work?

>> No.3529909

10/10

Best new troll.

>> No.3529915

>>3529889
What are you talking about? Where did I presume to "disprove" quantum mechanics? Yet more putting words in my mouth, how tiresome.

>> No.3529918

>>3529904

The same reason 2+2=4

>> No.3529919

>>3529918
Why does that math problem work?

>> No.3529923

>>3529899
Not sure.


Also are all of these biblefags here just summerfags? I really hoped that the biblefags would stay in /k/ with the rest of the morons.

>> No.3529927

>>3529923
Nobody in this thread has invoked the Bible. Apparently a "biblefag" is anyone who disagrees with you.

>> No.3529929

>>3529860

antimatter fluctuates
i didn't say "nothing" fluctuates

But i don't remember excatly what he said. watch the video

>> No.3529934

>>3529919

go fuck yourself

>> No.3529937

>>3529929
well in that case you don't have nothing, you have anti-matter

>> No.3529953

If you wanna stump me then it's only a matter of time
If you actually want an answer look up a guy called Paul Dirac. It's up to you to understand.

>> No.3529960

>>3529937
see
>>3529953

>> No.3529965

>>3529915
>>3529915
>>3529915
>wherein the word "nothing" is redefined to include "fluctuations"

That obviously shows you don't understand quantum mechanics

>> No.3529974

SO at what point did theoretical physicists stop thinking the needed empirical evidence for there theory's?

>> No.3529984

>>3529965
Assertions are easy to make. Yours demonstrates conclusively that you love to eat shit.

>> No.3529997

>>3529974
this

these theories are batshit insane

and atheists believe them blindly because it is "science"

>> No.3529999

>>3529974

It didn't.

you seem to not understand mathematics

>> No.3530000
File: 102 KB, 714x659, 1309149514272.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3530000

>>3529965

The number 0 can NOT represent the number 1 you fuckin idiot.

Nothing therefore can NOT be represented by something.

>> No.3530018

I wonder how much of /sci/ is aware that Stephen Hawking has been wrong over and over again on the big questions, and he's only so well-known because he's a cripple.

>> No.3530019

>>3529997
>>3529997
>>3529997
Dear god troll harder,it takes about 15 years of schooling to start on quantum mechanics, and you're going to singlehandedly say "this part of it doesn't work because it's not intuitive?

The emperical evidence is there, whether you understand it or not

>> No.3530022

>>3530000
>>3529965

neither of you understand the theory because i didn't explain it well.

it's the dirac equation. it's fucking complicated

>> No.3530038

>>3530019
>hurrrr you just cant understand it

No, I understand it perfectly and its batshit INSANE.

Another dimension?

Why not just say god exists?

>> No.3530039

>>3530022
More assertions from the poster who is right now vigorously raping his own mother.

>> No.3530052

this is why i hate internet athiests

>> No.3530062

>>3530038

>I understand it perfectly

I assure you, you don't

>>3530039

I was specifically talking about the dirac equation.

Honestly, does anyone think they're disproving quantum physicists? .

>> No.3530071

>>3530062

Right, so can you show me the paper were they field tested this hypothesis and with what equipment they used?

>> No.3530074

>>3530038
>>3530052
>Quantum mechanics is insane
>Incredibly accurate predictions
>I no understand physics

That's not how dimenisons work, I don't even know where to start

>> No.3530079

what i don't get is that everyone (Athiests and theists) cannot sufficiently answer why something can come from nothing.

there are no laws in nothing
there are no principles
no fluctuations
no physics
no forces
no anything
you cannot simply say "well there were perturbations in the blah field" no. there is no field and nothing purturbates within it because nothing can. it's NOTHING

>> No.3530081

I saw some of this. Close ups of Hawking staring at the camera like a badass. Funny shit but flawed analogies. Not convincing.

>> No.3530088

>>3530079
that is why i believe in a supernatural creator

>> No.3530091

>>3530062
>Honestly, does anyone think they're disproving quantum physicists?

No, that's a straw-man you invented. All I said (the genesis of this whole line of discussion) was that you can't explain how to get "something from nothing" by redefining "nothing" to include "something." That's not an argument but a semantic game. Nothing I said depends on any detail of quantum mechanics, but you came along saying that I'm trying to "disprove quantum mechanics" and that I "don't understand."

I'm now pretty bored with this nonsense.

>> No.3530097

>>3530071

here you go

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

also,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDZaj3sEkFY

>> No.3530101

Virtual particles that come from nothing .. except they don't come from nothing but virtually nothing. They are the result of something, and only exist because of something else happening. So how is that nothing?

>> No.3530107

>>3530079
>>3530038
>>3530052
>Quantum mechanics is insane
>Incredibly accurate predictions
>I no understand physics

That's not how dimenisons work, I don't even know where to start

Also >>3530079
lrn2math

>> No.3530112

>>3530088
>Ad Hominem

lol nice ad-hominem you got there.

>> No.3530118

>>3530091
Virtual particles pop into existance from nothing, what do you not understand?

>> No.3530120

>>3530112
thatsnothowthatworks.jpg

>> No.3530132

>>3530097

I guess, I will look for it my self. I was hoping for a article so I didn't have to watch some guy riding on a boat in venues,(wtf)

>> No.3530135

>>3530107
nope, no math in nothing, math requires some structure or rules

please prove me wrong

>> No.3530145
File: 25 KB, 408x406, 1290086819908.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3530145

stay classy /sci/

>> No.3530152

Fucking theists, QM isn't logical, NO ONE UNDERSTANDS IT.

That doesn't stop it from being true. Light can act as a particle and a wave, does that make any sense to you? No, it doesn't, but it's fucking true.

>> No.3530157

>>3530152
Atheism the greatest unproven theory in the universe.

>> No.3530159

>>3530118
What *YOU* do not understand is that you have not answered my argument at all. Just because you call a particular state "nothing" does not mean that "nothing" is an apt description of it. You cannot explain something just by changing the definition. You cannot explain "something -> nothing" by changing the definition of "nothing" to "a field in which virtual particles pop into existence" which in any case must already include time and space, because something cannot "pop into existence" outside of time (the process implies an antecedent and a successor state and therefore the pre-existence of time) or space (providing some attribute of scale, location or other properties - saying that something pops into existence that has no characteristics is empty).

>> No.3530160

the concepts of god and nothing are arbitrary.

a omni god is pretty much bunk though.

>> No.3530161

>>3530118

this is a flawed statement. Science had been finding partials popping out of nothing for years, but then they make more advanced equipment and find out there was something there after all. the existence of nothing has never been proven.

>> No.3530173

>>3530152

Mathematics is in direct opposition to faith.

what can you do?

>> No.3530176

>>3530161
>existance of nothing has never been proven

Ontologically, or simply logically, what's outside of the universe/mulitverse? Nothing? Correct?

>> No.3530180

>>3530176
The universe exists so absolute nothing doesn't exist. Relative or virtual nothing can exist but not pure nothing.

>> No.3530189

>>3530152

If the purest definition of "nothing" is the complete and total absence of all things and phenomena.

That still doesn't answer the question of how something came from nothing.

>> No.3530190

>>3530159

IT'S A FUCKING MATHEMATICAL EQUATION! IT WAS DISCOVERED ACCIDENTALLY WHEN DIRAC WAS TRYING TO PROVE THE CONCEPT OF "NOTHING".

LOOK IT THE FUCK UP IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND IT.

>> No.3530196

>>3530135
see
>>3530190

unless you can argue that these particular structures or rules can spontaneously burst into existence from pure nothing

>> No.3530203

>>3530176

This guy. this guy right here

>>3530180

that would depend on what you believe "space" is

>> No.3530204

>>3530189

I'm going to assume your some shitty english major, here you go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvpv2VfRIaE

>> No.3530207

>>3530190
This is the (so far not formally named) "use google" fallacy. You don't provide any counter-argument to what I say but just flatly state that I am ignorant, wrong and should "use google" to confirm this. You cannot argue by subpoena. Either you can answer my argument or you can't.

>> No.3530213

>>3530189
If there's nothing, then there are no laws dictating what nothing does, so nothing can literally create something. From nothing. It's that simple.

>> No.3530214
File: 126 KB, 450x373, 127679019737.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3530214

>>3530161
>existance of nothing has never been proven.

No shit, because it would be logical fallacy. You can not prove the existence of non-existence, you fuking retards.

>> No.3530219

>>3530214
Yeah, so Stephen Hawking wants to replace God with Nothing. Where did everything come from? Nothing.

>> No.3530222

Not sci anymore, but nothing probably exists 1) As a concept and 2) Just imagine the absence of everything. If you say there is still something there, take that away too. Is everything gone yet? Ok, take that out too. Done? Nothing Achieved.

>> No.3530223

>>3530213
If there are no laws governing nothing, then there are no laws governing which things nothing might create and with what probability. Nothing creates God, who creates the universe. It's that simple. There is no principled reason to suppose that trajectory of events is less preferable.

>> No.3530225

>>3530219
>implying you don't have to prove that the universe has to come from something

>> No.3530230

>>3530225
>implying
>Discovery Curiosity
>is
>not
>science

>> No.3530232

>>3529535

It's still an assumption, nothing has been proven. Ptolemy proved that to earth is at the center of the universe using a model of physics we still consider to be true, so... no, sorry.

inb4 butthurt christfag (100% Atheist here)

>> No.3530234

>>3530223
But creating god just adds a useless step to the equation. It's much simpler for nothing to just create everything itself.

>> No.3530235

>>3530207

I don't' know how a rocket engine works but they do. Just because i can't explain it doesn't mean an explanation doesn't exist. I gave you plenty of links.

>> No.3530248

>>3530234
That's a lot of foresight for nothing to have, eliminating a middle-man seen to be irrelevant in retrospect.

>> No.3530250

>>3530213
but that's applying a rule unto nothing

>> No.3530253

>>3530234

The concept of "nothing" implies complete and total nonexistence -- no energy, no matter, no gravity waves, no magnetic fields, absolutely devoid of any substance whatsoever. Such a state would have no force, drive, "motivation," or power to produce anything. In other words, the inability to produce something is an inherent part of the state of nothingness. Therefore, an experiment showing something coming form "nothing" is, ironically, concrete evidence that something must beyond a shadow of a doubt exist where the experimenter thinks there is nothing.

>> No.3530258

>>3530204
>>3530204
>>3530204
>>3530204
>>3530204
>>3530204
>>3530204
>>3530204
>>3530204

FUCKING THIS

let it end already

>> No.3530263

>>3530250

limitation is not a prerequisite for unlimited possibilities.

>> No.3530271

>>3530258
Nope!


If it exists then it has boundaries. Which implies there's an environment independent of these boundaries.

>> No.3530283

>>3530271

they clearly say it doesn't exist

>> No.3530290

why are people saying virtual particles come out from nothing when the theory states that the particles are using background energy to come into being?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

>> No.3530299

Dear OP.

It is "Hawking" not "Hawkins".

Hurrr durr atheist sooo edgy can't even spell his name.

Fucking moron.

>> No.3530332

Hahaha as if science and religion will ever defeat one another.

Moreover, Hawking has said in the past that he personally believes in a creator of some kind, he just isn't quite sure of the details.

>> No.3530333

>>3530253

So your idea of an intelligent creator is that he must be within the nothingness and be nothing?
What is there to say it is not outside of the nothing.

>> No.3530341

>>3530290

That energy still exists in an environment, so what's the environment?

>> No.3530346

>>3530333

I'm not a theist, I just want my science to be empirically proven. People need to accept the there are hypothesis that we don't have the tools to test yet and until we do there is no right answer.

>> No.3530360

>>3529535
>Curiosity: Did God Create The Universe
WHERE CAN I WATCH THIS

>> No.3530367

>>3530341

what are you trying to say? The hypothesis says that the energy creates particles of matter and ant-matter they then cancel each other out and return the energy to the environment.

>> No.3530386

>>3530360

Learn to use google you fucking underaged retard. I found it in 5 seconds.

>> No.3530437

>>3530346

You don't have to be a theist to entertain a thought, after all I'm not one either. (and I agree with your second point)
All I'm saying is why is this creator not allowed to be outside of the nothing, beyond it in a whole different tier.

>> No.3530494

Original Poster, just because science can explain that the universe doesn't need a creator doesn't mean that science beats religion...

There are many religions which don't believe in a creator such as Buddhism or Dao...

It seems so far science is actually PROVING Taoism to be true - in a way (not completely!)....

Think about it, the Tao teaches of duality and the flow...

It's true that duality exists, there is light/dark, heat/cold, up/down, left/right, protons/neutrons, life/death...

Also, science is so sophisticated and logical, and even the mathematics have a certain pattern to them.

This is evidence that there is order in this universe and duality which Taoism teaches...

By the way: I am not a Taoist just making a point

>> No.3530525

>>3530223
Actually there is. If you assume ``God'', you're creating some unneeded limitations as for what something can be, when all you actually need is mathematical consistency. Read >>3529631
Even if some sort of deity is assumed to have emulated or ran some universe, it actually makes sense for the universe to also exist independently. If the deity decides to modify the object/simulation, then they're just creating a new object and thus they are now left with a Godless-universe and a God-controlled-universe. Guess which one I think this is.

>> No.3530543

>>3530494
>Ad Hominem

yet another ad hominem, just give up because you're not helping your argument one bit by sounding like a broken record.

>> No.3530558

>>3530494
>It's true that duality exists, there is light/dark, heat/cold, up/down, left/right, protons/neutrons, life/death...

>implying light/dark rather than degrees of illumination
>implying heat/cold rather than degrees of heat
>implying up/down, left/right, instead of interacting vectors with magnitude and direction
>implying neutron is opposite of proton instead of electron
>implying no inanimate objects
>implying implications

>> No.3530575

You guys are forgetting the big question
Why are we here?

>> No.3530581
File: 15 KB, 245x270, 1282440426435.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3530581

>>3530575

>> No.3530583

>>3530575

I think you forgot the answer

>> No.3530586

>>3530575

The earth needed a way to get rid of the oil that has been building up for millions of years. Once most of it is gone she has no more need for a single one of us.

>> No.3530597

>>3530575
>define why
>define we
>define here
The most obvious answer would be that we are here because a lot of physical and chemical interactions through thirteen billion years have resulted in us being here.

>> No.3530615

>>3530558

Exactly, so what if it's a degree it's still two sides of the same stick. On one side there's heat and on the other side there is cold, the same for light and the other stuff I mentioned and I did indeed slip saying proton instead of electron...

Anyway, this is all irrelevant. The point was that science didn't win over religion just because it explains how the universe is without a god... because like I said, some religion don't involve a god...

>> No.3530633

>>3530615

The definition of religion is very diverse and there is a context to be acknowledged.

>> No.3530635

>>3529535
Seriously guys, seriously. First, this idea is several years old. Second, we've already known that there was no god for quite a bit longer than that. Third, this isn't going to convince anyone anyway.

>> No.3530657

>>3530635

I really don't think anyone had all their eggs in this basket.
Its the Discovery channel and its Hawking, when have either of them recently contributed to the scientific community if not just for creating buzz or entertainment for the "intellectuals."

>> No.3530662

>>3530615

An entire spectrum with infinite discrete values is not the same as duality.

There is not just heat and cold because what seems hot in one application may be simultaneously cold in another application because it is all relative. Also there is no such thing as adding cold because you are removing heat. Just like you can't add dark, you can only remove light.

>> No.3530677

OP, by assuming Hawking cannot be wrong on this matter, you just made him your god, you realize that? You just gave a human being omniscience.

>> No.3530715

>>3530662

There is a duality of "being" and "not being".

light/dark
heat/cold
white/black

Even for things that don't have an opposite, you can still do this:

red/not-red
blue/not-blue
full/not-full (aka empty)

The duality is in the being and not being...

But again, the point of me mentioning Taoism was in regards to the original post; that science has not beat religion by proving that there isn't a god because some religions don't require one...

>> No.3530733

>>3530677

Actually its much deeper and subtle than that since it is not Hawking but mathematical computer simulations being trusted. Which begs the question if we are able to put all knowledge into a computer that can create perfect predictive models of the universe what is the difference between that computer and a god as traditionally understood?

>> No.3530736

>>3530657
Hawking is just the poster boy for phsyics. truth be told, he's semi-retired and in his 60's, and obviosuly in rough shape. i enjoyed his books thoroughly.

>> No.3530744

>>3530733
>that computer and a god as traditionally understood?

The computer came into existence after the start of the universe. The computer did not create humans. The computer does not violate the laws of physics in response to prayers by humans, aka miracles.

God as traditionally understood is the opposite of those things.

>> No.3530747

>>3530715

congratulations, you have discovered the logical operator NOT, but I can assure you there are many more logical operators, most of which display increased complexity

>> No.3530763

>>3530744

l2 god vs God

Most gods didn't do any of the things you mentioned either, maybe I should have said classically instead of traditionally since I meant more like egyptian provider gods.

>> No.3530776

Is there a link for this yet? And did he say anything that Krauss has not said?

>> No.3530777

>>3530763
In which case, the computer obeys the laws of physics. Gods as classically understood do things that man can never do, aka magic.

>> No.3530786

>>3530777

>implying sending messages to anyone, anywhere in the world at any time and translated into any language in less than a second isn't magical or something man could do without computers.

>> No.3530790

>>3530777
[citation needed]

>> No.3530799

>>3530786
>Implying that science is magic
Really? Go away troll.

>> No.3530812

>>3530204

Okay, so if these virtual particles annihilate one another almost in an instant, how does this relate to the creation of the universe? Sorry, I'm a bit new to this kind of stuff.

>> No.3530816

>>3530799
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

>> No.3530831
File: 16 KB, 458x332, dire2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3530831

>>3530812
The theory he's pimping is that the universe came from nothing just like virtual particles seem to. Something from nothing.

>> No.3530845

>>3530831

I see. But why doesn't annihilation doesn't come into play in the universe's case then?

>> No.3530861

>>3530845

no its all big stretch and not really applicable.

>> No.3530888
File: 103 KB, 785x594, vestigial.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3530888

>> No.3530896

there is no way for us to know how the universe came into existence. we can discover how our universe came into its present condition, but we cannot discover how it came into existed.

Religion explains it with magic. Science turns a blind eye to what can't be explained and instead tries to explain everything that happened afterwards.

>> No.3530917

>>3530896

Yes, this used to be true, but now science has been able to explain it. That's the subject of OP's post.

>> No.3530932
File: 82 KB, 720x479, 1311890137294.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3530932

>>3530845
>>3530845
>>3530845
>>3530845

>> No.3530935

I saw this come on TV and my first reaction was
>Oh boy, another shitty "science" documentary that treats religion as fact
Then out of nowhere Stephen Hawking, and that's when I knew it was going to be good.

Unfortunately I had to stop watching when it cut to break after he talked about how he was going to prove that the big bang didn't require God, so I missed the best part.

>> No.3530948

>>3529535>implying RELIGION hates evolution
Catholic, Assemblies of God, Lutheran, Southern Baptist, Seventh-Day Adventist, Anglican, Methodist/Wesleyan, Presbyterian, ect.
Additionally, the study shows that Sunday school attenders are more likely to believe that God used evolution to create human beings, and that God used evolution to change one kind of animal into another.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

>> No.3530982

>>3530896
You don't actually need magic to explain anything. Science can't explain it as it deals with the falsifiable, but philosophy (informed by science and algorithmic information theory) already came up with a closed ontology which is more than enough to explain everything and even make some interesting and testable predictions (although not falsifiable, which is why I claimed that it's outside the domain of science, like philosophy of science is itself outside the domain of science).

>> No.3530984

>>3530948

That's kind of the point. They only accept evolution because they have to. Their religion was proven wrong. It never included evolution originally, it contained a contradictory account that science proved wrong. Some christians reacted by denying the science, others rationalized it, retconning the bible to fit with science. But that's a subtle admission that their religion is wrong, which makes me wonder why they bother trying to salvage it like that anyway.

The same thing will happen with this discovery. Some christians will deny it, others will rationalize it. It's happening already. About half seem to be saying "This is bullshit, scientists can't know this" and the other half are saying "This fits with the Bible if you just assume that God did it, but made it look like it happened by itself."

Same bullshit rationalization, same division into the deniers and the rationalizers, same as it ever was. Except now the moderates who thought they were totally accepting of science are finding themselves joining the creationists in the science denial corner, because they can rationalize away evolution, but many aren't willing to accept a natural origin of the universe.

Should be fun to watch.

>> No.3530996
File: 170 KB, 339x378, 1304645890451.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3530996

>Then out of nowhere Stephen Hawking
>that's when I knew it was going to be good.

>> No.3531025

Time began with the big bang

This sentence is wrong even on a linguistic level

>> No.3531048

>>3530948
>ect
I hate people like you. It's ETCETERA, not ECETERA. FUCKING CUNT HOLES, LEAVE MY PLANET BE!

>> No.3531068

>>3531025
yes i disagreed with this notion. he implies this because we can't see past the big bang, therefore if we can't detect it, its not there, on the other hand this is pretty much the argument we use to discredit the existence of god.

>> No.3531078
File: 123 KB, 210x279, seangarrity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3531078

>>3531048

"ECTETERA"

>> No.3531083

>>3531025
Imagine this, a function:
f:N->U
f(0)=U0
f(x)=f(f(x-1)), if x>0
Now imagine that x stands for time.
I'm not saying this is how it works as the function's output is actually a huge set and the function is applied to all the outputs (and so on).
The multiverse would then be the set of some initial state(s) and the values resulting from applying the function repeatedly, you could even say the multiverse is closed under that function. (This would break down if you consider time as a continuum and not quantized, but even then the concept can be recovered)
Now imagine what it would be like to exist within such a multiverse: you can only be conscious in time as each state depends on the last and to actually acquire information (and memories) time is required to exist (observers can only exist embedded in time).

The Big Bang would be this state U0 (it isn't required to be, there can be states before it, but for the sake of the argument, you can assume so). Can you say what was before t=0 when you defined that t belongs to N (natural numbers)? No.

>> No.3531096
File: 16 KB, 500x375, neckbeard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3531096

>WE DID IT GUIZ, WE'RE BEATING A DEAD HORSE, WE'RE SO SPECIAL AND SUPERIOR
Oh for fuck's sake.

http://www.4chan.org/rules#sci
>No "religion vs. science" threads.

Reporting, I don't care that it's 200 posts long.

>> No.3531142
File: 24 KB, 500x375, well024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3531142

Alright, I just watched this. I'm pretty convinced. Or were there some holes in his logic that I didn't notice?

>> No.3531152

Seems like no one has posted a link to the video yet, so I shall do that now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CvZD9TIb-M&feature=related

>> No.3531338

>>3530917
Nope!

Wrong yet again. Science never explained it and it will probably never explain it using empirical data.

>> No.3531346
File: 23 KB, 500x375, body929.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3531346

If we can explain everything that primitive man thought was the work of god then what else is there to explain. We can scientifically explain the birth of a newborn. We can explain why most things happen. If there was a god then what is he really controlling if the laws a nature are fixed?

>> No.3531425

>>3529710

Religion also provides ignorance. Another reason why religion isn't the key to humanity's future.

>> No.3531440

>>3531425
> implying humans can't live harmoniously in a state of ignorance
> has read zero sci fi or history
> even plato covered this ya fuckwit

>> No.3531451

i was under the impression that 'science versus religion' threads were against the rule of this board.

>> No.3531464

>>3531440
Sure they might, but they'll never be able to get most things they might want. I would value any society that strives to be less ignorant as opposed to one which would just let things be (and eventualy die ignorant). Try understanding what makes us better than apes.

>> No.3531495

>>3530733

Except that we can't, and it isn't.

You can't prove or disprove an omnipotent God with science, because this would imply that He is subjected to it.

>> No.3531497

>>3531464
and why is that exactly? can you explain why knowledge is even good? why you treat it as this mystical being to be worshipped?

all humans can possibly ever know is a tiny fraction of what is real. so why bother, if the knowledge has no pragmatic use?

i'd give greater value to the society which works out that knowledge is not some ultimate goal of good, but rather strives to live in a sustainable and harmonious manner, and the individuals to have the best lives they can.

>> No.3531500

>>3531495
That which makes no difference might as well not exist.

>> No.3531506

>>3531497
>individuals to have the best lives they can.
You'll fall into a naturalistic fallacy here, because you assume that what nature has to offer is the best, when it's actually quite cruel in reality. With knowledge you can alter reality in ways to make your life better, without it you can live as you can then die.