subject:"\[FairfieldLife\] Re\: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God \| Mail Online"

Judy,

Thanks for the heads up on this Nova episode.  I'm familiar with Brian Greene's 
work through the video clips available in YouTube.  He is very good at 
communicating to the general public complex ideas in physics into 
understandable language.  But he tends to be a dreamer in that he believes that 
there is a way to prove, through scientific observation, the existence of the 
Multiverse.

Nonetheless, I will be looking out for this show.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> You guys might want to watch this series, which begins
> tomorrow (Wednesday) on Nova on PBS. The four hour-long
> episodes deal (in order) with space, time, the quantum
> world, and the realm of other universes. From the series
> Web site:
> 
> "The Fabric of the Cosmos," a four-hour series based on the book by renowned 
> physicist and author Brian Greene, takes us to the frontiers of physics to 
> see how scientists are piecing together the most complete picture yet of 
> space, time, and the universe. With each step, audiences will discover that 
> just beneath the surface of our everyday experience lies a world we'd hardly 
> recognizea startling world far stranger and more wondrous than anyone 
> expected.
> 
> Brian Greene is going to let you in on a secret: We've all been deceived. Our 
> perceptions of time and space have led us astray. Much of what we thought we 
> knew about our universethat the past has already happened and the future is 
> yet to be, that space is just an empty void, that our universe is the only 
> universe that existsjust might be wrong.
> 
> Interweaving provocative theories, experiments, and stories with 
> crystal-clear explanations and imaginative metaphors like those that defined 
> the groundbreaking and highly acclaimed series "The Elegant Universe," "The 
> Fabric of the Cosmos" aims to be the most compelling, visual, and 
> comprehensive picture of modern physics ever seen on television.
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html?gclid=CO7D7f26lKwCFYmI5godqywUrQ
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/3nbe3mj
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Denise Evans  wrote:
>
> The bottom line, John, is that you "choose" to believe. Â You can't prove an 
> "observer"...the word is inherently personal. Â Steve Jobs chose to "believe" 
> in God as well, before he died. Â Nothing wrong with it(the comment by 
> the cosmologist on the irony of the fact that there must be an "observer" in 
> order to "know or create" the "finite or infinite" universe wasn't proof as I 
> recall...it was just a comment.) Â It's all very fascinating stuff, but there 
> is no "proof" necessarily that all of us, currently limited by our physical 
> presence, can "know" for ultimate surety. 

Denise,

The proof is that we as human beings are conscious and are able to rationalize 
the natural laws around us.  If we did not have this faculty, we would not be 
able to have a civilization and technology that we have today.

Similarly, the mechanisms to operate the universe from the quantum level to the 
galactic levels are very complex and awe inspiring.  One cannot simply 
rationalize these mechanisms to be a random act of nature.  Specically, why is 
there time, space and matter?  If there was no Observer, these things will not 
and cannot exist or make sense.  We know this to be true because we are 
conscious and are the observers as well.

> 
> I choose to believe in something greater than myself as well and I 
> personalize it to some degree...I can't reconcile the cold laws of physics 
> with the warmth of believing in a larger God/energy that has the 
> characteristics of love and compassion, for example. Â But, life works better 
> when I "believe" and makes more sense in terms of my soul and energetic 
> presence on the planet, and that's all that really matters to me. Â I retreat 
> to the idea that consciousness just IS
> 

Your point is well taken.  It is logical and very human to believe that since 
we love and have compassion, the Observer of this universe must have these 
qualities as well.  This is the reason why the enlightened teachers of the past 
have taught that the Divine has incarnated into the world in the form of a 
human being, or as both human and divine.

You're correct in saying that consciousness IS.  MMY has said this many times 
over in the past--the very essence of Being.

________________
> From: obbajeeba 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 12:01 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the 
> universe without God | Mail Online
> 
> 
> Â  
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjI6D84ExvU
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > > > 
> > > 
> > >   If theory only exists, then how do we know if God or god created 
> > > anything?  The best theory, is still a theory. 
> > > 
> > > The definition of what God or god is, is still to be defined by what is 
> > > actual. 
> > > Presence, can have more influence of knowing what was, by what is.
> > > 
> > 
> > To answer the existence of God, one can use an ontological argument, like 
> > the Kalam Cosmological Argument, to determine the logical answer.  Also, 
> > one can derive the existence of a Creator by understanding the significance 
> > of natural laws.  These laws are consistent everywhere in the universe.  As 
> > such, there must be an Observer which makes these laws function the way 
> > they do.  Otherwise, there would be no order, life forms or human beings in 
> > the universe.  For that matter, there would be no space, time and matter.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

2011-11-01 Thread authfriend

You guys might want to watch this series, which begins
tomorrow (Wednesday) on Nova on PBS. The four hour-long
episodes deal (in order) with space, time, the quantum
world, and the realm of other universes. From the series
Web site:

"The Fabric of the Cosmos," a four-hour series based on the book by renowned
physicist and author Brian Greene, takes us to the frontiers of physics to see
how scientists are piecing together the most complete picture yet of space,
time, and the universe. With each step, audiences will discover that just
beneath the surface of our everyday experience lies a world we'd hardly
recognizea startling world far stranger and more wondrous than anyone expected.

Brian Greene is going to let you in on a secret: We've all been deceived. Our
perceptions of time and space have led us astray. Much of what we thought we
knew about our universethat the past has already happened and the future is
yet to be, that space is just an empty void, that our universe is the only
universe that existsjust might be wrong.

Interweaving provocative theories, experiments, and stories with crystal-clear
explanations and imaginative metaphors like those that defined the
groundbreaking and highly acclaimed series "The Elegant Universe," "The Fabric
of the Cosmos" aims to be the most compelling, visual, and comprehensive
picture of modern physics ever seen on television.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html?gclid=CO7D7f26lKwCFYmI5godqywUrQ

http://tinyurl.com/3nbe3mj

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

2011-11-01 Thread Denise Evans

The bottom line, John, is that you "choose" to believe.  You can't prove an 
"observer"...the word is inherently personal.  Steve Jobs chose to "believe" in 
God as well, before he died.  Nothing wrong with it(the comment by the 
cosmologist on the irony of the fact that there must be an "observer" in order 
to "know or create" the "finite or infinite" universe wasn't proof as I 
recall...it was just a comment.)  It's all very fascinating stuff, but there is 
no "proof" necessarily that all of us, currently limited by our physical 
presence, can "know" for ultimate surety.  

I choose to believe in something greater than myself as well and I personalize 
it to some degree...I can't reconcile the cold laws of physics with the warmth 
of believing in a larger God/energy that has the characteristics of love and 
compassion, for example.  But, life works better when I "believe" and makes 
more sense in terms of my soul and energetic presence on the planet, and that's 
all that really matters to me.  I retreat to the idea that consciousness just 
IS

From: obbajeeba 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 12:01 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the 
universe without God | Mail Online

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjI6D84ExvU

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> > > 
> > 
> >   If theory only exists, then how do we know if God or god created 
> > anything?  The best theory, is still a theory. 
> > 
> > The definition of what God or god is, is still to be defined by what is 
> > actual. 
> > Presence, can have more influence of knowing what was, by what is.
> > 
> 
> To answer the existence of God, one can use an ontological argument, like the 
> Kalam Cosmological Argument, to determine the logical answer.  Also, one can 
> derive the existence of a Creator by understanding the significance of 
> natural laws.  These laws are consistent everywhere in the universe.  As 
> such, there must be an Observer which makes these laws function the way they 
> do.  Otherwise, there would be no order, life forms or human beings in the 
> universe.  For that matter, there would be no space, time and matter.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

2011-11-01 Thread Yifu

A refutation of the Ontological argument (first articulated by St. Anselm 
10-33-1109) will be offered through Dr. Rebecca Newberger Goldstein later today 
or tomorrow.
...
A refutation of the need for an Outside Observer will be presented through the 
help of New Scientist, 29 Oct 2011: "Begone, quantum voyeur..." in a nutshell 
stating "The idea allows the wave function to collapse without needing to 
involve an observer". Article by editor David Shiga based on the work of 
physicist Daniel Bedingham.
...
Bedingham's theories have gained support from some other physicists: "It would 
be the first modification to quantum mechanics since its conception in the 
1920's."
...
...
http://www.krislewisart.com/images/annunciation.html

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> > > 
> > 
> >   If theory only exists, then how do we know if God or god created 
> > anything?  The best theory, is still a theory. 
> > 
> > The definition of what God or god is, is still to be defined by what is 
> > actual. 
> > Presence, can have more influence of knowing what was, by what is.
> > 
> 
> To answer the existence of God, one can use an ontological argument, like the 
> Kalam Cosmological Argument, to determine the logical answer.  Also, one can 
> derive the existence of a Creator by understanding the significance of 
> natural laws.  These laws are consistent everywhere in the universe.  As 
> such, there must be an Observer which makes these laws function the way they 
> do.  Otherwise, there would be no order, life forms or human beings in the 
> universe.  For that matter, there would be no space, time and matter.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjI6D84ExvU

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> > > 
> > 
> >   If theory only exists, then how do we know if God or god created 
> > anything?  The best theory, is still a theory. 
> > 
> > The definition of what God or god is, is still to be defined by what is 
> > actual. 
> > Presence, can have more influence of knowing what was, by what is.
> > 
> 
> To answer the existence of God, one can use an ontological argument, like the 
> Kalam Cosmological Argument, to determine the logical answer.  Also, one can 
> derive the existence of a Creator by understanding the significance of 
> natural laws.  These laws are consistent everywhere in the universe.  As 
> such, there must be an Observer which makes these laws function the way they 
> do.  Otherwise, there would be no order, life forms or human beings in the 
> universe.  For that matter, there would be no space, time and matter.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

> > 
> 
>   If theory only exists, then how do we know if God or god created anything?  
> The best theory, is still a theory. 
> 
> The definition of what God or god is, is still to be defined by what is 
> actual. 
> Presence, can have more influence of knowing what was, by what is.
> 

To answer the existence of God, one can use an ontological argument, like the 
Kalam Cosmological Argument, to determine the logical answer.  Also, one can 
derive the existence of a Creator by understanding the significance of natural 
laws.  These laws are consistent everywhere in the universe.  As such, there 
must be an Observer which makes these laws function the way they do.  
Otherwise, there would be no order, life forms or human beings in the universe. 
 For that matter, there would be no space, time and matter.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> > >
> > > Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
> > 
> > 
> > There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
> > started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he 
> > was alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the 
> > imaginary world for the wave function to exist.
> > 
> > This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as the 
> > Big Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > But God can create or destroy matter.
> > 
> > I agree with this.
> 
> Then again, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs


The Big Bang Theory states that there was no time, space and matter before the 
universe began. That means these were created at the singularity of the Big 
Bang.

The phenomenon of black holes suggests that matter gets destroyed at the 
singularity within the black hole.  We can only speculate as to what happens on 
the other side of the black hole.  Some scientists say that a small baby 
universe may be created.  But nobody can prove this idea to be a scientific 
fact at the present time.



> 
> > 
> >  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has 
> > > said in his career.
> > 
> > IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books.  In that 
> > regard, he may be shrewd. 
> > > 
> > > He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone 
> > > else??
> > 
> > Yes, for the reasons given above.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should 
> > > > resign from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is 
> > > > associated with.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
> > > > > explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> >
> > The big bang is only theory.  The scientists are still puzzled why their 
> > equations break down at the singularity point.  Another professor opined 
> > that the Quantum Cosmology Theory eliminates the problems at the 
> > singularity point.  So, there you have it.
> 
> 
> This is true.  But it's the best theory around to describe the universe for 
> now.
> 

  If theory only exists, then how do we know if God or god created anything?  
The best theory, is still a theory. 

The definition of what God or god is, is still to be defined by what is actual. 
Presence, can have more influence of knowing what was, by what is.

> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
> > > started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he 
> > > was alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the 
> > > imaginary world for the wave function to exist.
> > > 
> > > This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as 
> > > the Big Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > But God can create or destroy matter.
> > > 
> > > I agree with this.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has 
> > > > said in his career.
> > > 
> > > IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books.  In that 
> > > regard, he may be shrewd. 
> > > > 
> > > > He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone 
> > > > else??
> > > 
> > > Yes, for the reasons given above.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should 
> > > > > resign from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he 
> > > > > is associated with.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
> > > > > > explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
>
> The big bang is only theory.  The scientists are still puzzled why their 
> equations break down at the singularity point.  Another professor opined that 
> the Quantum Cosmology Theory eliminates the problems at the singularity 
> point.  So, there you have it.


This is true.  But it's the best theory around to describe the universe for now.

 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> > >
> > > Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
> > 
> > 
> > There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
> > started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he 
> > was alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the 
> > imaginary world for the wave function to exist.
> > 
> > This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as the 
> > Big Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > But God can create or destroy matter.
> > 
> > I agree with this.
> > 
> >  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has 
> > > said in his career.
> > 
> > IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books.  In that 
> > regard, he may be shrewd. 
> > > 
> > > He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone 
> > > else??
> > 
> > Yes, for the reasons given above.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should 
> > > > resign from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is 
> > > > associated with.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
> > > > > explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

2011-11-01 Thread curtisdeltablues

-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
> explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon

Hawking also thinks that the potential existence of other lifeforms in the
universe undermines the traditional religious conviction that we are living on
a unique, God-created planet. But there is no proof that other lifeforms are
out there, and Hawking certainly does not present any.

ME: Correct, it is a probability but there is not direct proof. His
establishing this as a critical criteria will be useful below.

It always amuses me that atheists often argue for the existence of
extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth. Yet they are only too eager to
denounce the possibility that we already have a vast, intelligent being out
there: God.

ME: Deceptive presentation. First of all I have only heard people say that it
is likely or probably that this is not the only planet in the universe that
could support life. And that is a fact. There is no reason that there are not
many planets with conditions to support life in the universe. But then he
makes his error worse by comparing this to the God idea. The big difference is
that we already have proof that life exists. And we know what conditions are
needed for carbon based life. So it is a small leap to assume that on one of
the likely planets with similar conditions, other life forms have developed.
We even understand the mechanism of how life developed here. We just don't
definitively now how it started.

No one is saying that God is not possible. This is a typical staw man
switchero. Atheist say we lack evidence to support the belief now, which was
coincidentally a criteria he was more than happy to apply to the lack of direct
evidence for other life forms in the universe.

We have a mystery, how did life begin? Religious people rename this mystery
"God", and add nothing to our understanding. They offer us conflicting texts
of God's communication with man, and actually kill each other over who has the
right God instructions. Renaming the mystery of life "God" is like renaming
short people "vertically challenged". Maybe it makes a few people feel better,
but they still aren't getting on the basketball team or pulling the hottest
chicks. (Unless they balance their lack of height with wallet thickness or
fame. Yeah, I'm talking to you Tom "short stack" Cruise.)

Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cSu1bLfj

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> >
> > Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
> 
> 
> There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
> started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he was 
> alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the imaginary 
> world for the wave function to exist.
> 
> This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as the 
> Big Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.
> 
> 
> > 
> > But God can create or destroy matter.
> 
> I agree with this.

Then again, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs

> 
>  
> > 
> > 
> > Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has 
> > said in his career.
> 
> IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books.  In that 
> regard, he may be shrewd. 
> > 
> > He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone else??
> 
> Yes, for the reasons given above.
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should resign 
> > > from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is 
> > > associated with.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
> > > > explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

The big bang is only theory. 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> >
> > Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
> 
> 
> There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
> started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he was 
> alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the imaginary 
> world for the wave function to exist.
> 
> This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as the 
> Big Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.
> 
> 
> > 
> > But God can create or destroy matter.
> 
> I agree with this.
> 
>  
> > 
> > 
> > Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has 
> > said in his career.
> 
> IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books.  In that 
> regard, he may be shrewd. 
> > 
> > He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone else??
> 
> Yes, for the reasons given above.
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should resign 
> > > from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is 
> > > associated with.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
> > > > explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

2011-10-31 Thread maskedzebra

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
> explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon
>
Dear Rick,

John Lennox is a distinguished professor of mathematics at Oxford. I have 
listened to him in conversation with Richard Dawkins. And his wit, his charm, 
his sincerity, and his intelligence (acting in the service of his idea of 
truth) seemed in my estimation at least to utterly defeat Dawkins, and turn 
Dawkins into a dogmatic robot. I don't say that Dawkins can't hold his own; it 
is just that in the presence of Professor Lennox, on this occasion, he was 
outdone in every sense. And reduced almost to babbling. This was not his formal 
debate with Dawkins; this was a quiet conversation recorded at Oxford. It is 
quite phenomenal.

As for his article here, it is simple elegant, and profound. Even if you 
disagree with every word of it. I hope some of the readers at FFL take a look 
at it. He covers most everything that is pertinent to answering Stephen Hawking.

I won't consider becoming an atheist until I find someone willing to 
contemplate the theistic argument in its strongest form. 

Reading what Lennox says here you get some clue I think what was behind those 
last words uttered by Steve Jobs. I think he saw all of creation as the 
expression of the loving intelligence of a Person.

But of course I would have to put that interpretation upon Steve Jobs, given 
what he is purported to have said. It does not sound as if he encountered The 
Absolute.

We are all in for a big surprise when this adventure and ordeal is over. But we 
will encounter the reality of death perfectly held inside our first person 
perspective. It will not be transcendent. It will be personal, intimate, and 
conclusive. For all time.

Two great posts, Rick: this one and the Maharishi transcript. Thanks.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> You're saying nobody can prove this and that. True, such hypothesis are based 
> largely on string theory and have no experimental evidence to back up the 
> hypotheses. So what's the evidence for GOD?


The evidence lies in the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  See the link below:

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


> ...
> But don't appeal to the Argument from Ignorance (i.e. possible flaws in 
> position A support position B - the God hypothesis). The God hypothesis is 
> equally unproven and unsupportable; and the Multiverse vp doesn't "need" God 
> to shore it up; anymore than evolutionary theory needs God to fill in 
> supposed gaps in the fossil record.

The multiverse theory is an unproven theory in scientific terms.  Also, the 
theory cannot be defended in metaphysical or ontological terms like the Kalam 
Cosmological Argument as shown above.


> ...
> The notion of an outside observer (again) is not at all needed in the 
> Multiverse hypothesis.  When you say "How can."; one could equally say 
> "How can" to the outside observer hypothesis. Neither position is more 
> true than the other on the face of it; except that the Multiverse hypothesis 
> does quite well without the need for an outside observer.

Without an observer or knower, the idea of a multiverse would not exist.


> 
>The Multiverse is its own Observer - that's the position of those 
> supporting that hypthesis. The notion of an outside Observer arose as a 
> consequence of some shortcomings of the Copenhagen viewpoint, not supported 
> by Einstein, in which he made fun of the idea that the moon wasn't "there" 
> (going back to Bishop Berkeley) if nobody was looking at it.

The fact that the moon exist even if you don't look at it means that there is 
Someone else who is looking at it to make it exist.  The same can be said for 
the entire universe.


 
> ...
> But for the sake of discussion, let's say there is a "GOD" who is the Outside 
> observer.  Tell me more about this God.  What's the Name of that "GOD"? Pray 
> tell. If there's an Outside Observer, how do you know which "GOD" it is? The 
> Scientology God Xenu?

You'll have find out yourself to satisfy your own question.  The past 
enlightened teachers can guide you to the way.


> ...
> In a nutshell, you're appealing to the Argument from Ignorance: (assertion A 
> may have some flaws in it, so one must appeal to cause B - in this cause the 
> "GOD".) Although the Multiverse hypothesis can't be proven, you haven't 
> disproven it; but the God argument is on even more thin ground.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is the proof.

> ...
> Last but not least, the Multiverse hypothesis is fully compatible with an 
> ever-existing entension throughout and beyond time itself, not needing an 
> original cause behind it. If there were "B" as a cause behind "A", what is 
> the cause of "C"...; and so on - again, infinite turtles all the way down.


The Kalam Cosmological Argument will prove the multiverse hypothesis wrong.

> ...
> So who is the Outside Observer of your Outside Observer?

The One True Living Divine Being.  The various major religions have already 
mentioned Who the Person Is.  The vedic seers have described the divine as the 
Self as you are the self.



 
> 
> http://www.carrieannbaade.com/cuteandcreepy/artists/scottgbrooks.html
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> > >
> > > So, you're appealing to the "The Mahareeshee says so" argument. 
> > > Interesting parallel to the Bible Says So tactic:
> > > http://www.scottgbrooks.com/2009_10.html
> > > ...
> > > The notion that the universe needs an outsider observer is an outmoded 
> > > corollary to the Copenhagen quantum viewpoint; but not at all necessary 
> > > in the Many Worlds (or Multiverse) hypothesis as currently expounded by 
> > > David Deutsch.
> > 
> > I don't believe the multiverse theory can be proved.  The current 
> > technology in the world is not able to make any telescopes that can go 
> > beyond our universe.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > ...
> > > Besides, if you're saying there's an outside observer, is that a 
> > > Personality? or simply some aspect of the relative but impersonal? What 
> > > is the nature of that outside observer and why doesn't this lead to an 
> > > infinite regress (needing another "outside" observer to observe that 
> > > entity, and so on;turtles all the way down).
> > 
> > Yes, the observer would a Personality of a divine order.  The Personality 
> > is not an aspect of the relative, nor is it impersonal.
> > 
> > 
> > > ...
> > > The "God of the gaps" tactic is unsustainable (the notion that a "God" is 
> > > needed to shore up supposed shortcomings in somebody's hypothesis).  The 
> > > Many Worlds/Multiverse hypothesis in recent decades has more or less 
> > > supplanted the Cophenhagen view

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

2011-10-31 Thread Yifu

You're saying nobody can prove this and that. True, such hypothesis are based 
largely on string theory and have no experimental evidence to back up the 
hypotheses. So what's the evidence for GOD?
...
But don't appeal to the Argument from Ignorance (i.e. possible flaws in 
position A support position B - the God hypothesis). The God hypothesis is 
equally unproven and unsupportable; and the Multiverse vp doesn't "need" God to 
shore it up; anymore than evolutionary theory needs God to fill in supposed 
gaps in the fossil record.
...
The notion of an outside observer (again) is not at all needed in the 
Multiverse hypothesis.  When you say "How can."; one could equally say "How 
can" to the outside observer hypothesis. Neither position is more true than 
the other on the face of it; except that the Multiverse hypothesis does quite 
well without the need for an outside observer.

   The Multiverse is its own Observer - that's the position of those supporting 
that hypthesis. The notion of an outside Observer arose as a consequence of 
some shortcomings of the Copenhagen viewpoint, not supported by Einstein, in 
which he made fun of the idea that the moon wasn't "there" (going back to 
Bishop Berkeley) if nobody was looking at it. 
...
But for the sake of discussion, let's say there is a "GOD" who is the Outside 
observer.  Tell me more about this God.  What's the Name of that "GOD"? Pray 
tell. If there's an Outside Observer, how do you know which "GOD" it is? The 
Scientology God Xenu?
...
In a nutshell, you're appealing to the Argument from Ignorance: (assertion A 
may have some flaws in it, so one must appeal to cause B - in this cause the 
"GOD".) Although the Multiverse hypothesis can't be proven, you haven't 
disproven it; but the God argument is on even more thin ground.
...
Last but not least, the Multiverse hypothesis is fully compatible with an 
ever-existing entension throughout and beyond time itself, not needing an 
original cause behind it. If there were "B" as a cause behind "A", what is the 
cause of "C"...; and so on - again, infinite turtles all the way down.
...
So who is the Outside Observer of your Outside Observer? 

http://www.carrieannbaade.com/cuteandcreepy/artists/scottgbrooks.html

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> >
> > So, you're appealing to the "The Mahareeshee says so" argument. Interesting 
> > parallel to the Bible Says So tactic:
> > http://www.scottgbrooks.com/2009_10.html
> > ...
> > The notion that the universe needs an outsider observer is an outmoded 
> > corollary to the Copenhagen quantum viewpoint; but not at all necessary in 
> > the Many Worlds (or Multiverse) hypothesis as currently expounded by David 
> > Deutsch.
> 
> I don't believe the multiverse theory can be proved.  The current technology 
> in the world is not able to make any telescopes that can go beyond our 
> universe.
> 
> 
> 
> > ...
> > Besides, if you're saying there's an outside observer, is that a 
> > Personality? or simply some aspect of the relative but impersonal? What is 
> > the nature of that outside observer and why doesn't this lead to an 
> > infinite regress (needing another "outside" observer to observe that 
> > entity, and so on;turtles all the way down).
> 
> Yes, the observer would a Personality of a divine order.  The Personality is 
> not an aspect of the relative, nor is it impersonal.
> 
> 
> > ...
> > The "God of the gaps" tactic is unsustainable (the notion that a "God" is 
> > needed to shore up supposed shortcomings in somebody's hypothesis).  The 
> > Many Worlds/Multiverse hypothesis in recent decades has more or less 
> > supplanted the Cophenhagen viewpoint among many if not most physicists; and 
> > this viewpoint by no means "needs" an outside observer since the Multiverse 
> > is it's own Observer. 
> 
> 
> How can the multiverse be it's own observer?  Nobody has proved the 
> scientific fact that the multiverse exists.  You're arguing from the 
> viewpoint of incorrect logic.
> 
>  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
> > > started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he 
> > > was alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the 
> > > imaginary world for the wave function to exist.
> > > 
> > > This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as 
> > > the Big Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > But God can create or destroy matter.
> > > 
> > > I agree with this.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has 
> >

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> So, you're appealing to the "The Mahareeshee says so" argument. Interesting 
> parallel to the Bible Says So tactic:
> http://www.scottgbrooks.com/2009_10.html
> ...
> The notion that the universe needs an outsider observer is an outmoded 
> corollary to the Copenhagen quantum viewpoint; but not at all necessary in 
> the Many Worlds (or Multiverse) hypothesis as currently expounded by David 
> Deutsch.

I don't believe the multiverse theory can be proved.  The current technology in 
the world is not able to make any telescopes that can go beyond our universe.



> ...
> Besides, if you're saying there's an outside observer, is that a Personality? 
> or simply some aspect of the relative but impersonal? What is the nature of 
> that outside observer and why doesn't this lead to an infinite regress 
> (needing another "outside" observer to observe that entity, and so 
> on;turtles all the way down).

Yes, the observer would a Personality of a divine order.  The Personality is 
not an aspect of the relative, nor is it impersonal.


> ...
> The "God of the gaps" tactic is unsustainable (the notion that a "God" is 
> needed to shore up supposed shortcomings in somebody's hypothesis).  The Many 
> Worlds/Multiverse hypothesis in recent decades has more or less supplanted 
> the Cophenhagen viewpoint among many if not most physicists; and this 
> viewpoint by no means "needs" an outside observer since the Multiverse is 
> it's own Observer. 


How can the multiverse be it's own observer?  Nobody has proved the scientific 
fact that the multiverse exists.  You're arguing from the viewpoint of 
incorrect logic.

 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> > >
> > > Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
> > 
> > 
> > There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
> > started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he 
> > was alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the 
> > imaginary world for the wave function to exist.
> > 
> > This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as the 
> > Big Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > But God can create or destroy matter.
> > 
> > I agree with this.
> > 
> >  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has 
> > > said in his career.
> > 
> > IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books.  In that 
> > regard, he may be shrewd. 
> > > 
> > > He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone 
> > > else??
> > 
> > Yes, for the reasons given above.
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should 
> > > > resign from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is 
> > > > associated with.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
> > > > > explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

2011-10-31 Thread Yifu

So, you're appealing to the "The Mahareeshee says so" argument. Interesting 
parallel to the Bible Says So tactic:
http://www.scottgbrooks.com/2009_10.html
...
The notion that the universe needs an outsider observer is an outmoded 
corollary to the Copenhagen quantum viewpoint; but not at all necessary in the 
Many Worlds (or Multiverse) hypothesis as currently expounded by David Deutsch.
...
Besides, if you're saying there's an outside observer, is that a Personality? 
or simply some aspect of the relative but impersonal? What is the nature of 
that outside observer and why doesn't this lead to an infinite regress (needing 
another "outside" observer to observe that entity, and so on;turtles all 
the way down).
...
The "God of the gaps" tactic is unsustainable (the notion that a "God" is 
needed to shore up supposed shortcomings in somebody's hypothesis).  The Many 
Worlds/Multiverse hypothesis in recent decades has more or less supplanted the 
Cophenhagen viewpoint among many if not most physicists; and this viewpoint by 
no means "needs" an outside observer since the Multiverse is it's own Observer. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
> >
> > Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.
> 
> 
> There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
> started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he was 
> alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the imaginary 
> world for the wave function to exist.
> 
> This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as the 
> Big Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.
> 
> 
> > 
> > But God can create or destroy matter.
> 
> I agree with this.
> 
>  
> > 
> > 
> > Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has 
> > said in his career.
> 
> IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books.  In that 
> regard, he may be shrewd. 
> > 
> > He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone else??
> 
> Yes, for the reasons given above.
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> > >
> > > This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should resign 
> > > from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is 
> > > associated with.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
> > > > explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba  wrote:
>
> Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.

There's a theory called Quantum Cosmology which states that the universe 
started out as a quantum wave function.  MMY favored this theory when he was 
alive.  The theory presupposes that there is an observer in the imaginary world 
for the wave function to exist.

This wave function then collapsed or manifested into the real world as the Big 
Bang.  Thus, matter, time and space was created.

> 
> But God can create or destroy matter.

I agree with this.

> 
> 
> Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has said 
> in his career.

IMO, it's very dumb, or that he just made it to sell his books.  In that 
regard, he may be shrewd. 
> 
> He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone else??

Yes, for the reasons given above.

> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
> >
> > This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should resign 
> > from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is associated 
> > with.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
> > > explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online

2011-10-31 Thread obbajeeba

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. A law of physics.

But God can create or destroy matter. 

Steven Hawking's statement may have been the most profound thing he has said in 
his career. 

He should resign for having an opinion that is different than someone else??

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John"  wrote:
>
> This article is insightful.  Hawking is past his prime.  He should resign 
> from his tenured position in Oxford or whatever university he is associated 
> with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-
> > explain-universe-God.html#ixzz1cMJFSYon
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Mail Online