Author Topic: Repost..  (Read 1661 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Repost..
« on: December 23, 2009, 11:28:51 AM »
I hear ya buddy. I too agree with Hawking, especially when he says things like....

Quote from: Steven Hawking Wrote in Black Holes & Baby Universes
What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

---which is precisely why you lost your debate, and why the kalam doesn't hold up.

There are models (which are viable and accepted as possibilities) that KC held up as examples.  You need to stick to rap forums and making pyhsical threats on the internet.

It's your destiny, pimp juice. 

Oooo  see  this  is  what  I  like.  Grogan  here  really  thinks  he  put  the  nail  in  my  coffin.  Do  you  guys  feel  it?  He  typed  the  words  with  such  conviction,  didn't  he?  This  is  probably  the  most  fun  I  ever  had  typing  a  post.  I'm  so  anxious  to  post  this,  my  fingers  are  shaking  as  i  type.  Look,  this  quote  that  Grogan  gives  us  was  a  theory  that  Hawking  had  back  in  1989.  He  made  a  "friendly"  bet  with  James  Preskill  on  this  subject,  and  in  2004,  Hawking  admitted  that  he lost  the  bet,  and  the  bet  ended  up  being  settled  by  Hawking  giving  Preskill  a  baseball  encyclopedia.  James  Preskill  tells  us  about  the  bet  right  here  http://www.theory.caltech.edu/~preskill/jp_24jul04.html 

Also,  to  give  Grogan  more  insult  to  injury,  Hawkings  said  "There  is  no  baby  universe  branching  off,  as  I  once  thought.  The  information  remains  firmly  in  our  universe.  I'm  sorry  to  disappoint  science  fiction  fans,  but  if  information  is  preserved,  there  is  no  possibility  of using  black  holes  to  travel  to  other  universes"     S.W.Hawking, "Information Loss  in  Black Holes"  15Sep05, 4.

Look  people,  as  I  said  over  and  over  again,  the  models  that  you  people  keep  coming  at  me  with  have  major  flaws  in  them,  and  I  already  quoted  Hawking  saying  that  the  BBM  remains  the  best  explanation  for  the  cause  of  the  universe.  Grogan,  you  failed.  It  was  a  nice  try,  because  I  can  tell  with  the  words  that  you  typed  you  thought  you  were  really  doing  something.  But  you  wasn't.  You  can't  beat  me  dude.  So  stop  trying.  Since  i  just  sucessfully proved  yet  another member  of  this  forum  wrong,  i  will  now  take  Grogans  advice,  i  will go  back  to  my  rap  forums  and  continue  making  physical  threats....see  you  guys  later...

Sidenote:  I  made  this  post  on  the  other  thread,  but  I  dont  know  how many people  saw  it,  so  here  it  is  again.  Goes  to show  you  how  ridiculous  some  of  these other  models  are...

I  also made  my closing  statment  to  the  previous  debate.  I  won't  be  coming  back  on  here  unless  I  am  debating  someone  else.  So, this  challenge  is  to  anyone,  whoever  want  to  debate  me on  the kalam argument,  pm  me.  I  will  be  coming  back  on  here  periodically  to  check.  I  don't  have  any other  reason  to come  on  here (except  to  see  Emily ;D),  i'm  not  on  here  for  the  chit  chat.  I am about  business.  So  if  you  acccept  the  challenge,  let  me  know.  Other  than  that,  peace  and  chicken  grease.

Big  ups  to  KC  for  a  good  debate

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Repost..
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2009, 12:27:38 PM »
Why would I want to watch a retarded person get beat up on. That's just pathetic. Even more sad that he can't understand what's going on.

 
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5670
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Repost..
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2009, 12:41:20 PM »
Quote
and  I  already  quoted  Hawking  saying  that  the  BBM  remains  the  best  explanation  for  the  cause  of  the  universe.

I don't remember anyone arguing that the BBM isn't the best. I think it's the best - but the big bang theory doesn't talk about anything supernatural. It's only a matter of arguing what caused it. You are arguing something supernatural - we aren't. But still many people here agree with the big bang theory, but some just don't believe a god was needed, as the quote by Hawking said;

Quote from: Steven Hawking Wrote in Black Holes & Baby Universes
What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

Quote
I  don't  have  any other  reason  to come  on  here (except  to  see  Emily ),

This is kind of creepy.

EDIT:

Don't know where else to post this but...

His  response:  My  opponent  offered  no  response  to  teh  thermodynamic  argument.  So  it  still  stands.

As to why I did not address Maj's thermodynamics argument: he was using it to argue for the Big Bang as a beginning of the Cosmos.  Since I accept the Big Bang, I did not think it necessary to use up space disputing over thermodynamics in this instance.

« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 12:51:31 PM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: Repost..
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2009, 01:02:49 PM »

Quote from: Steven Hawking Wrote in Black Holes & Baby Universes
What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

Why  you  are  now  giving  this  Hawking  quote  is  beyond  me.  That  quote  was  made  in  1989,  and  i  gave  one  that  he made  in  2005  which  he  apologized  to  fans  for  coming  up  with  that  model  that  you  are  quoting.  So  why  you  are  quoting  it  as  proof  of  anything  is  just  plain  ridiculous.  But,  whatever.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5670
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Repost..
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2009, 01:15:22 PM »
Quote
Why  you  are  now  giving  this  Hawking  quote  is  beyond  me.  That  quote  was  made  in  1989,  and  i  gave  one  that  he made  in  2005  which  he  apologized  to  fans  for  coming  up  with  that  model  that  you  are  quoting.  So  why  you  are  quoting  it  as  proof  of  anything  is  just  plain  ridiculous.  But,  whatever.

OK all I am saying is I don't think there's a need for a god to cause the universe, which is, in a nutshell, what this whole argument has been. I've told you how I view it. But, whatever.

The Hawkings quote that you gave doesn't eliminate the quote that Grogan gave.

Grogan's quote: Hawkings is talking about how a god is not necessary.
You're quote: Talking about how there are no baby universes, and that you can't travel to other universes through a black hole.

He doesn't apologize for making his first quote. Well, in a sense he does because the first quote is from a book dealing with baby universes, but Hawkings still probably believes that a god is not necessary for the creation of a universe, which is what the first quote is getting at. The gist of the first quote still stands.

And the bet that you are talking about that Hawkings lost....

Therefore Preskill offers, and Hawking/Thorne accept, a wager that:

When an initial pure quantum state undergoes gravitational collapse to form a black hole, the final state at the end of black hole evaporation will always be a pure quantum state.

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/~preskill/info_bet.html
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 02:34:18 PM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5014
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Repost..
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2009, 01:25:31 PM »
Why would I want to watch a retarded person get beat up on. That's just pathetic. Even more sad that he can't understand what's going on.

Turn your head Pony...got it turned?

OK.

Majesty,

Please prove the supernatural.


Offline DisdainDavid

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1354
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Almighty Zeus
Re: Repost..
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2009, 01:29:21 PM »
Why would I want to watch a retarded person get beat up on. That's just pathetic. Even more sad that he can't understand what's going on.

Turn your head Pony...got it turned?

OK.

Majesty,

Please prove the supernatural.



Maybe you two can debate the subject?  Possibly in debate room 3?   ;)
I will stop to contribute in this thread until some one shows up and seem to have brain. -- Master

It's a shame how you put your trust in theories that keep on changing. Bible has stayed the same for thousands of years [. . .]  -- Skylark889

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5014
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Repost..
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2009, 01:53:02 PM »

Maybe you two can debate the subject?  Possibly in debate room 3?   ;)

It's not a really a debate. It's more suited to the general forum. All I (we) have to do is examine his hypothesis for the supernatural and the tests and data he gathers to back up his hypothesis and turn it into an accepted theory.

Offline Agamemnon

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4940
  • Darwins +15/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Repost..
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2009, 02:47:08 PM »
I'm looking forward to seeing you get totally pwned, HAL. I'm sure it will happen soon. And then we can just shut this whole forum down and go home.
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.  --Bertrand Russell

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5014
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: Repost..
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2009, 02:53:42 PM »
It's no different than having a debate about the Invisible Pink unicorn. What could I say in the debate but -

"Please present your tests and data that prove this being exists"

Either they have the data or they don't.

I'm not debating it does or doesn't exist. I don't know, nor do I have a claim one way or the other. The Burden of Proof is on not on me.

Offline Agamemnon

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4940
  • Darwins +15/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Repost..
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2009, 02:59:35 PM »
The Burden of Waiting Forever While Majesty Blatantly Ignores the Question is on you, though. He knows he can't win if he answers the question, but he also knows he can't lose if he doesn't answer the question. Checkmate, atheists.
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.  --Bertrand Russell

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: Repost..
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2009, 03:14:14 PM »
Majesty,

Look  people,  as  I  said  over  and  over  again,  the  models  that  you  people  keep  coming  at  me  with  have  major  flaws  in  them,  and  I  already  quoted  Hawking  saying  that  the  BBM  remains  the  best  explanation  for  the  cause  of  the  universe.  Grogan,  you  failed.  It  was  a  nice  try,  because  I  can  tell  with  the  words  that  you  typed  you  thought  you  were  really  doing  something.  But  you  wasn't.  You  can't  beat  me  dude.  So  stop  trying.  Since  i  just  sucessfully proved  yet  another member  of  this  forum  wrong,  i  will  now  take  Grogans  advice,  i  will go  back  to  my  rap  forums  and  continue  making  physical  threats....see  you  guys  later...

There appears to be a serious misunderstanding here. As I understand it, no-one has seriously disputed that the Big Bang model is the best explanation for the development of the cosmos. However, the Big Bang model has nothing whatsoever to say with respect to the cause of the cosmos - your assertions to the contrary.

You can, of course, refute this by showing where LCDM cosmology makes such a claim, or where it says that there was "nothing before the Big Bang". Merely calling people ignorant and asserting that it's a long time since they opened a Physics textbook does not cut it. Repeating your original assertion ad nauseam (whether in all-caps or not) does not cut it. TITS or GTFO.

On your earlier reply to myself, to which I was unable to respond in the thread in question:

Sweetheart, assertion by all-caps doesn't add any weight to an argument. If anything, it shows that you're losing the plot.

Notice the  focus  isn't  on  the  argument,  but  on  the  CAPS.  It  looks  like this  broke  down  spartan  aint  prepared  for  a  war  after  all  lol.

There wasn't anything new in your latest response - it was just a rehash of what you'd already said. All you've said is that just because IMPs have been established not to be responsible for natural phenomena every single time in the past, we cannot thereby conclude that they are not responsible for natural phenomena for which an explanation remains elusive.

That is not in dispute; but kcrady made it quite plain that he wasn't making a deductive conclusion, but an inductive inference - and further, the inference was not that IMPs don't exist, but that it's a "bad bet" that IMPs hold explanatory power, and as such, favouring an IMP explanation over a naturalistic one in the absence of any other data does not make sense.

Quote
Its  funny,  because  when  you  look  up  fallacy  of  composition,  you  will  find  out  that  fallacy  of  "hasty  generalization"  often  get  confused  with  "fallacy  of  composition".  And  i  can  see  why,  because  YOU  are  giving  an  example  of  the  two  being  confused  with one  another.

I'll take that as a concession that you did indeed get the two fallacies confused.

Fallacy of composition: The Earth contains iron. Therefore, the Earth is a metal.
Hasty generalization: All swans in the Northern Hemisphere are white. Therefore, all swans are white.

Quote
Even  if  IMPs  have  "poor  track  records"  (even  tho  i  don't  believe  that  they  do),  that  STILL  doesn't  mean  that  IMPs  dont  exist  lol.  They  could  still  exist  despite  a  poor  track  record.  So  once  again,  you  fail  with  the  argument,  and  you  can  cling on  to  it  until  the  day  that  you  die,  but  you  will  still  be  wrong.  So  keep  your  false  hope  alive.

Again you miss the point. It is not kcrady's job to prove that IMPs don't exist. He did not set out to do this. I do not do so. So your assertion that he, or I, "fail with the argument" is simply proof of your own lack of understanding, because that is not the argument being made.

Quote
Really?  Give  me  a  post  that  has  every  single  religion  that  has  made  testable  claims  and  prove  that  that  particular  religion  has  been  proven  wrong.  You  made  the  statement.  So  show  me.  If  you  can't,  then  you  are  a  liar.

I didn't say "proven wrong", so you're putting words into my mouth. I said "come up short". You can begin and end with all their cosmologies, and their estimates of the age of the Earth and the cosmos.

Earlier you said: "As  far  as  the  rainbow  crap  is  concerned.  We  know how  rainbows  occur  on  a  natural  level,  but  does  that  mean  that  Yahweh  didn't  cause  the  rainbow  as recorded  in  Genesis  by  a  supernatural  occurence?  NOOOO,  it  does not  logically  follow."

You missed the point. I said "the reason for rainbows", which - if you'll recall - was because Yahweh had supposedly flooded the entire planet, and promised not to do it again - if you count the reckoning according to the Bible, some time in around 2,400BCE. Sadly, this is a testable claim that has come up short, as geologists can find no evidence whatsoever of a global flood in 2,400BCE, and that kind of thing would leave its mark - further, we know of civilizations that existed before, during and after this supposed inundation period that not only fail to make any record of it, but who apparently remained utterly unaffected by it. As far as science is concerned, such a global flood simply did not happen when the Bible claims it did. Moreover, there are good scientific reasons for concluding not only that it did not happen, but that a global flood could not have happened. As such, the Biblical notion of the reason for rainbows fails as a good explanation for rainbows, and is - from that point of view - no better than Bifrost or any other supernaturalistic explanation for them (some of which may even predate the Biblical one).

And are you seriously suggesting that the refraction of light is a phenomenon that simply did not exist before the (now widely discredited) postulated event of a global flood in around 2400BCE? The fact is, in this as in other cases, we do not need to appeal to an IMP in order to explain the refraction of light. It's a well understood natural phenomenon. And refraction of light doesn't stop at rainbows - you can after all achieve the same result with a prism, or a glass of water for that matter.

Quote
Regardless  of  whether  the  words  are  in  CAPS,  or  lower  case,  each  word  that  i  type  are  hittin  you people  like  a  large  grenade.  How  about  you  debate  me  on  the  issues  Deus??  If  you  wont  accept  the  challenge  to  the  debate, then  simply  keep your  comments to  yourself.

I am trying to discuss the issues, my dear, but you keep ignoring them. How about you actually address the point I made? Why do you ignore the first law of thermodynamics, which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and further, insist that Big Bang cosmology (a) is incompatible with any multiverse hypothesis and (b) contained within it the premise that 1LoT is violated at t=0?
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 04:20:27 PM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Grogan

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • I Deny God
Re: Repost..
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2009, 05:53:26 PM »
This thread is so awesome.

It's a clear example of how Majesty read what was posted, and ignored the content, and went right back to his boilerplate responses.

Hawking implicitly states, and has stated *repeatedly* that there's no evidence or reason to appeal to the supernatural as the causality for the creation of the Universe.

His concession, like most scientists, is that it's not an absolute. There's no way to know that a deity did or didn't create it. 

Unlike you, Keith, we----and Hawking---goes where the evidence leads us. We don't start at our conclusion and work backwards.

Try it sometime.

Quote from: kenn
You want to understand God and the world around you through science and logic alone and, because you cannot come up with a "reasonable" explanation for what they ate when leaving the ark, you dismiss it.

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1780
  • Darwins +88/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Repost..
« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2010, 04:13:31 AM »
Has Majesty jumped ship already? Those debate rooms where he promised to trounce every one of us are looking awfully empty :)

Offline ReasonIsOutToLunch

Re: Repost..
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2010, 06:41:57 AM »
Is there a way to teach reading comprehension?
God, doesn't know pi.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12275
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Repost..
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2010, 12:22:24 AM »
Is there a way to teach reading comprehension?

Sorry, what are you asking?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.