0 x 0 = 0

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Of course you're right that Hawkings is saying that. Like I said a couple of pages ago, Wiccan is tenacious. :)

I’m sure he still won’t admit that:

The word “beginning” means “beginning”;

science tries to do useful things; and

that atheistic evolution necessarily implies pantheism.
^_^

The word 'beginning' means 'beginning', but that is a necessary truth. The statement 'Plato is Plato' is as true as any statement can be, but it tells us nothing about Plato.

Science of course tries to do useful things: there are a plethora of possible avenues of research, but we choose only a handful: those of interest to the scientists themselves and the people who fund (the military, the medicinal community, the government, businesses, etc).

Atheistic evolution implies nothing more than the lack of divine interference in evolutionary progress. Pantheism is something completely unrelated.

:wave:
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
It is complete nonsense because "before" t=0 there is no such thing as "t". You can't talk about a time unit before t=0 because time does not exist.
On the contrary, the point in time designated as 't=0' is entirely arbitrary. Since we cannot know what happened before the Big Bang, it makes sense to label it as 't=0'. But as Hawking explained, this is an arbitrary designation.

If I want to model the flight of a thrown ball, it might be prudent to label the start of its flight as time zero. But does this mean that time itself began there? Of course not.

"All the evidence seems to indicate that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago." - Prof Stephen Hawkings.

OK then, if he's not saying the universe had a beginning there what exactly is he saying?? Is there some secret code that he uis using that I don't know about and that you do?
His initial statements are simplifications for the layman. He clarifies himself later on in the lecture: "[FONT=Verdana, Arial]Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences..."[/FONT] To him, we call the start of the Big Bang the beginning of the universe because it was, effectively, the beginning: what happened before the Big Bang is of no observational consequence to what happened after.

That is, the universe 'began' in the same way that a cake 'begins': though its constituents existed before t=0, their exact mechanics are of no consequence to the final cake.
 
Upvote 0

Oneofthediaspora

Junior Member
Jul 9, 2008
1,071
76
Liverpool
✟9,124.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
On the contrary, the point in time designated as 't=0' is entirely arbitrary. Since we cannot know what happened before the Big Bang, it makes sense to label it as 't=0'. But as Hawking explained, this is an arbitrary designation.

If I want to model the flight of a thrown ball, it might be prudent to label the start of its flight as time zero. But does this mean that time itself began there? Of course not.


His initial statements are simplifications for the layman. He clarifies himself later on in the lecture: "[FONT=Verdana, Arial]Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences..."[/FONT] To him, we call the start of the Big Bang the beginning of the universe because it was, effectively, the beginning: what happened before the Big Bang is of no observational consequence to what happened after.

That is, the universe 'began' in the same way that a cake 'begins': though its constituents existed before t=0, their exact mechanics are of no consequence to the final cake.

Where does Hawking say that t=0 is completely arbitrary??
He doesn't because it isn't. It is designated t=0 because this is the "time" when time began. This is clear from the lecture. Point out the places on which you base your assertions.

You seem to think the following is extremely telling for some reason but that reason can only be because you don't understand the relevance of it: "Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences ..."
They have no observational consequences because they are before and outside of the existence of the universe and time. Science as we know it can say absolutely nothing about such hypoythetical "events".
If you are saying that some event outside of or before the existence of the universe and time brought about the event that occurred at t=0; then you, me and Hawking agree. That's what I have been saying from the start though and we have therefore wasted an awaful lot of (finite) time discussing this.

Let's leave the next bit to Stephen by way of conclusion:

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe begaan would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but does not have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase will not have the opposite arrow of time to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older and won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I'd better stop now." (Haha , good one Stevie!)

I think it is time to accept defeat graciously,

Mike.
 
Upvote 0

Oneofthediaspora

Junior Member
Jul 9, 2008
1,071
76
Liverpool
✟9,124.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
His name is Hawking, not Hawkings.

I know, I know ... I'm sorry.
I often make this mistake.
D'you know what it is? In discussions with atheists I am so used to reading and typing the name "Dawkins" which sounds a bit like "Hawking" and so I get mixed up and add an "s".

Guess which out of those two people I admire more?
That's right, the one who didn't let a personal prejudice make him think he had something important to say and subsequently turn into an embaressing fool.

What do you think of the God Delusion as someone who actually knows a bit about philosophy and theology?
 
Upvote 0

stan1980

Veteran
Jan 7, 2008
3,238
261
✟12,040.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I know, I know ... I'm sorry.
I often make this mistake.
D'you know what it is? In discussions with atheists I am so used to reading and typing the name "Dawkins" which sounds a bit like "Hawking" and so I get mixed up and add an "s".

Guess which out of those two people I admire more?
That's right, the one who didn't let a personal prejudice make him think he had something important to say and subsequently turn into an embaressing fool.

What do you think of the God Delusion as someone who actually knows a bit about philosophy and theology?

What didn't you like about the God Delusion (I haven't read it in full myself)? I think Dawkins might come across as a bit smug but there has seldom been a time when I've particularly disagreed with him.
 
Upvote 0

Oneofthediaspora

Junior Member
Jul 9, 2008
1,071
76
Liverpool
✟9,124.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It was incredibly, embarressingly bad and full of error whenever he tried to discuss scripture or theology.
It was straw-man-tastic at times, CF. the chapter on morality.
He seemed to think that anti-religious polemic and vitriol was an adequate substitute for reasoned argument.
I could go on but I would suggest you read it in full.

BTW, I thought "The Selfish Gene" was superb. It helped me understand evolution much better. I think his popular science work is brilliant.
His atheist apologetics on the other hand are not too good.
 
Upvote 0

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
37
Oxford, UK
✟24,693.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
What do you think of the God Delusion as someone who actually knows a bit about philosophy and theology?

I think Dawkins shouldn't try to do philosophy of religion. :p I found the book funny, but not very enlightened or enlightening.

Dawkins is outside his area of expertise in The God Delusion, and it shows. Someone like Daniel Dennett, who's actually studied the psychology of religion, is better-placed to make a sane contribution to philosophy of religion. As for theology... well, Dawkins thinks it's a waste of time, and you can imagine how I feel about that ;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stan1980

Veteran
Jan 7, 2008
3,238
261
✟12,040.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, I wouldn't.

Tell you what Stan ... start another thread on it.
I know I brought it up but I don't want this thread to get side-tracked here. We're at a crucial moment. Any minute now, Wiccan Child is going to re-appear and admit defeat :)

Okay, I've gone to a lot of effort on that, but it's up!
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp_fan

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
5,069
100
✟6,323.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I love the fact that this thread, 0 x 0 = 0, found its way to Dawkins.

Although I'm sure his anti-Christian endeavors has his bank account showing more zero's on the better side of the decimal point.

Dawkins and Marilyn Manson. Not bad, for a school employee and very ugly guy to get rich and famous the time honored way. Bash a Christian and get paid.

You gotta respect the capital gained from free enterprise.
 
Upvote 0

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
37
Oxford, UK
✟24,693.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Dawkins and Marilyn Manson. Not bad, for a school employee and very ugly guy to get rich and famous the time honored way. Bash a Christian and get paid.

Dawkins was doing pretty well for himself before The God Delusion.

He's much more than "a school employee", anyway.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Where does Hawking say that t=0 is completely arbitrary??
[FONT=Verdana, Arial]"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier."[/FONT]

Hawking is saying that, since we cannot know what happened before the Big Bang, we may as well act like the universe began then. In other words, t=0 at the moment the Big Bang started.

You seem to think the following is extremely telling for some reason but that reason can only be because you don't understand the relevance of it: "Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences ..."
They have no observational consequences because they are before and outside of the existence of the universe and time.
Tell me, if time began with the Big Bang, how can there be preceding events?

Science as we know it can say absolutely nothing about such hypoythetical "events".
Hence why we may as well say that time began then. We don't know whether it did or not,

If you are saying that some event outside of or before the existence of the universe and time brought about the event that occurred at t=0; then you, me and Hawking agree.
Partially. Hawking is simply stating that we cannot know what happened beyond 13.5 billion years. Any events which happened to occurred before then are of no consequence, so we may as well treat them as if they never occurred.

While it is feasible that the Big Bang is itself the result of some prior event, we simply do not know. We say the universe 'began' with the Big Bang not because we know, or because the evidence suggests it, but because it may as well have.

Let's leave the next bit to Stephen by way of conclusion:

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe begaan would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but does not have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase will not have the opposite arrow of time to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older and won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I'd better stop now." (Haha , good one Stevie!)

I think it is time to accept defeat graciously,

Mike.
I would, if Hawking hadn't proven my point earlier on: he specifically defined the word 'begin' to be the start of the Big Bang, not the dawn of time itself.

Check his own definitions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

truthshift

Bring it on
Nov 6, 2008
244
23
Phoenix
✟15,490.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
When did Manson come up? I must've missed it.

Manson wanted to be a writer, but found that he could make more by writing lyrics for songs.

Here he is interviewed by O'Reilly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucnA8ElvZQA

With the way Manson portrays himself on stage you would never guess that he was a particularly well-spoken and knowledgeable person. I never knew that he had wanted to be a writer.
_________
To an extent I believe that the media plays a role in the upbringing and attitudes of children. However, that is not to say that blame rests on the shoulders of just the media. I do not like the media myself, but every person has a personal responsibility.

One of a parents' personal responsibilities is to their children. I don't think that it's appropriate to seclude oneself or ones children from certain aspects of the outside world (This seems prevalent if not necessary for religious indoctrination). There are things that are only appropriate at certain ages and that is understandable.

However, I believe that parents should make it their job to inform their children about the moral, intellectual, physical, legal, and emotional considerations of any ideal or action that they are exposed to.

Allow children to make their own choices; inform them, enable them, and empower them to act and think free of influences.

It would not surprise me if every case inspired by some influence or at least blamed on some influence on a child was actually a lack of objective consideration on the persons part.
_________

I also want to make note that Bill O'Reilly kept trying to put Manson on the defensive and he wouldn't take it. :cool:

Edit: grammar is fun!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.