Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VIII
- Thread starter Turbo
- Start date
- Status
Hawkings atheistic universe argument
Hawkings atheistic universe argument
"I can find a word for something popping into existence from nothing: magic. Magic is not real. And an atheist with a pre-suppositional bias against a supernatural origin of the natural universe must contradict at least one of the first two laws, and so, Stephen does. Hawkings is wrong."
This is very much a false statement. Quantum physics predicts that particle/anti-particle pairs come into existence spontaneously. This has been tested by experiment and shown to be true. When things are at quantum and plank lengths you can't use standard forms of logic or reasoning. Existence and non-existence are not well defined concepts until the quantum system is disrupted by a classical system, ie. measured. As the universe can’t be measured outside itself, by definition, since it is all that there is. Hence, its existence on that scale becomes a difficult question to deal with in its own right. As Hawkings said, time itself is part of the universe. If the universe is point sized time does not process. If time does not process does the universe exist? How could we know it exists if it requires time to observe the universe to measure its existence? If something can't be measured to exist then the discrete distinction between existence and non-existence is meaningless.
( Bahh, rubbish, you say, but take 4 years of undergraduate physics and then come back and talk. One shouldn’t discount things because they superficially make no sense. )
So I guess one could say that the universe was in this very much non-classical, semi-existent (but most likely physically tractable) state until it got large enough for time and existence to have some meaning. Then it existed. When physical systems scale to different rules, ie. Plank weirdness -> quantum -> semi-classical- > classical they do so smoothly. So one can not even say at what point the universe did in fact exist, and what point where existence had no meaning.
A non-quantum argument that addresses this problem:
The universe is defined as the set of all that exists. Anything that is not in this set does not exist. Does this set exist? The universe can’t include itself. Hence the universe does not exist. This is a classic paradox of logic. We see again that discussing the existence, non-existence, especially in the creation of the universe is on a deep level a flawed question. The vary notion of existence is so intimately tied to the concept of the universe that it can not be applied to the universe in a meaningful way.
Hawkings atheistic universe argument
"I can find a word for something popping into existence from nothing: magic. Magic is not real. And an atheist with a pre-suppositional bias against a supernatural origin of the natural universe must contradict at least one of the first two laws, and so, Stephen does. Hawkings is wrong."
This is very much a false statement. Quantum physics predicts that particle/anti-particle pairs come into existence spontaneously. This has been tested by experiment and shown to be true. When things are at quantum and plank lengths you can't use standard forms of logic or reasoning. Existence and non-existence are not well defined concepts until the quantum system is disrupted by a classical system, ie. measured. As the universe can’t be measured outside itself, by definition, since it is all that there is. Hence, its existence on that scale becomes a difficult question to deal with in its own right. As Hawkings said, time itself is part of the universe. If the universe is point sized time does not process. If time does not process does the universe exist? How could we know it exists if it requires time to observe the universe to measure its existence? If something can't be measured to exist then the discrete distinction between existence and non-existence is meaningless.
( Bahh, rubbish, you say, but take 4 years of undergraduate physics and then come back and talk. One shouldn’t discount things because they superficially make no sense. )
So I guess one could say that the universe was in this very much non-classical, semi-existent (but most likely physically tractable) state until it got large enough for time and existence to have some meaning. Then it existed. When physical systems scale to different rules, ie. Plank weirdness -> quantum -> semi-classical- > classical they do so smoothly. So one can not even say at what point the universe did in fact exist, and what point where existence had no meaning.
A non-quantum argument that addresses this problem:
The universe is defined as the set of all that exists. Anything that is not in this set does not exist. Does this set exist? The universe can’t include itself. Hence the universe does not exist. This is a classic paradox of logic. We see again that discussing the existence, non-existence, especially in the creation of the universe is on a deep level a flawed question. The vary notion of existence is so intimately tied to the concept of the universe that it can not be applied to the universe in a meaningful way.
cur_deus_homo
New member
Re: Hawkings atheistic universe argument
Re: Hawkings atheistic universe argument
Re: Hawkings atheistic universe argument
This is a version of Russell's Paradox, but the problem here has more to do with the meaning of "existence" as a predicate than with arbitrarily defining the universe as a "set of all that exists."
One Eyed Jack
New member
Re: Hawkings atheistic universe argument
Re: Hawkings atheistic universe argument
Could you cite the experiment, please?
Re: Hawkings atheistic universe argument
Could you cite the experiment, please?
lightninboy
Member
Jerry Shugart won.
Jerry Shugart won.
Jerry Shugart won. Jeremy contradicted himself when he said that works were not required for salvation when he was arguing that works were required for salvation.
Jerry Shugart won.
Jerry Shugart won. Jeremy contradicted himself when he said that works were not required for salvation when he was arguing that works were required for salvation.
:doh: Me thinks you have little comprehension skills.lightninboy said:
lightninboy
Member
Jerry Shugart Won.
Jerry Shugart Won.
All right, then. Jerry Shugart won because he was on the right side of the debate. Do you want to have Battle Royale VIII all over again?
Jerry Shugart Won.
All right, then. Jerry Shugart won because he was on the right side of the debate. Do you want to have Battle Royale VIII all over again?
Pastor Kavorkian
Pastor Kavorkian
Quote-- Really? Were the Jews the authors of the Bible? Yes. ---Were the Jews the authors of the Old Testament? Yes! Do we find a description in the Old Testament of eternal punishment? YES!
Psalm 140:10
10 Let burning coals fall upon them; Let them be cast into the fire, Into deep pits, that they rise not up again.
I find it interesting that pastor Kavorkian uses psalms 140:10 actually it's 140:11 ( a book of prayers ) as proof of eternal punishment.....Whats up with this????
Now what it really says
May he rain burning coals upon them; may he cast them into the depths never to rise.
this is nothing more than a prayer.
stop all the smoke and mirrors already
Pastor Kavorkian
Quote-- Really? Were the Jews the authors of the Bible? Yes. ---Were the Jews the authors of the Old Testament? Yes! Do we find a description in the Old Testament of eternal punishment? YES!
Psalm 140:10
10 Let burning coals fall upon them; Let them be cast into the fire, Into deep pits, that they rise not up again.
I find it interesting that pastor Kavorkian uses psalms 140:10 actually it's 140:11 ( a book of prayers ) as proof of eternal punishment.....Whats up with this????
Now what it really says
May he rain burning coals upon them; may he cast them into the depths never to rise.
this is nothing more than a prayer.
stop all the smoke and mirrors already
I was about to ask why you have such a wrong view about works and then I noticed you are a Catholic. Catholics have never gotten the whole concept of works correct. Why? Because that Jesus's sacrifice on the cross was not enough to forgive their sins and that Jesus's resurection was not enough to redeam them to everlasting life with the Father.solarb said:
They believe that what was begun in the spirit (accepting Jesus as their savior) must be completed in the flesh (legealism and works).
Its kind of sad and is ultimatly why I'm not a Catholic anymore.
Whoa... that was random.
So when you get a rash/scab/skin irritation...do you show yourself to a son of Aaron (a priest)?
Letsargue
New member
Letsargue
New member
The Scriptures don’t teach that, or anything like that anywhere in them.
When a person is lost, he is considered having no hope, and without God in the WORLD. >> Ephesians 2:12 KJV – “Having no hope, and without God in the world”. ------//-- A Lost person is totally carnal minded, and sees nothing of the Spirit of God. He is of the world of WORKS, and not of Faith. – Then the Gospel is preached to him. - IF he believes the Gospel, he will repent / sorrowful for his ways, and seek further, - “What can I do”!! – Then the “FIRST WORKS” TOWARD SALVATION; - obeying the Gospel that was taught him. To obey the Gospel, one must DO / “DO” the Gospel, “do the death, burial and the resurrection” of Jesus Christ. That is a WORK that is ordained for the lost to DO, to be added to the Body of Christ by CHRIST, where there is no more works that save one from his sins. The works of the Gospel are the only works that translates, or baptizes into the Kingdom of Christ. He is then called a “Christian”, a member of the Church / Body of Christ. – Romans 6:3-4 KJV - Know ye not, THAT SO MANY OF US as were baptized into Jesus Christ were BAPTIZED INTO HIS DEATH? 4- Therefore, WE ARE BURIED WITH HIM BY BAPTISM INTO DEATH: THAT LIKE AS CHRIST WAS RAISED UP FROM THE DEAD (( BY THE GLORY OF THE FATHER )), EVEN SO WE ALSO SHOULD WALK IN NEWNESS OF LIFE”. ---&--- Acts 2:38 KJV – “Then Peter said unto them, REPENT, AND BE BAPTIZED (( EVERY ONE OF YOU )) in the name of Jesus Christ (( FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS )), and YE SHALL RECEIVE THE GIFT of the Holy Ghost”. -------//--- There is not another Word in all the Scriptures that contradicts with that. - One can only reject it, being the Word of God, and that is the crucifying of the Lord Jesus. That is how one CRUCIFIES THE LORD!! >> Galatians 3:1 KJV – “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, THAT YE SHOULD NOT OBEY THE TRUTH, before whose eyes JESUS CHRIST HATH BEEN (( EVIDENTLY )) SET FORTH, CRUCIFIED AMONG YOU”? ------//-- The Galatians were not at the crucifixion of Christ, other than by the “WITNESS” of the GOSPEL OF CHRIST which places the Gentile, or lost person at the Crucifixion. THAT’S WHAT GOD IS SAYING. Deny it if you must!!
Paul – 052512
Jesus is a Jew....and so are His Apostles.
Letsargue
New member
Jesus and "ALL" His Apostles were “LEVITES”, not Jewish by blood. – They were however, Jews, because they lived in, and were CITIZENS of the nation of Judah, and Jerusalem. - I can’t understand how you all keep saying that Jesus was a JEW, referring that He was of the Tribe of Judah. - Jesus was of NO TRIBE, but what the Father spoke Him to be. Jesus’ Mother was of the Tribe of Levi, of the daughters of Aaron, not even of Moses.
Paul – 052712
Last edited:
John 4:
21. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
- Status